overpopulation, suffering, death, and killing

[pce]

the thoughts i am about to express are very extreme and by no means do i think we should start accepting what i am about to discuss. in fact i am totally against it but the more i think about them the more they seem like the logical extention of our thoughts and actions. please read them with an open mind and read it to the end, and do not simply dismiss my thoughts because of their extremity. and after you read it, please prove me wrong.....

1) first of all, when is it that something is morally right? is it when it goes by the basic rules of the ten commandments or the "golden rule?" if this is the case, isn't it true that following these rules isn't always the moral thing to do? you don't want people to lie to you but if you lived during the holocaust and lied about the location of a jewish family to the nazi's, you would undoubtedly be doing the right thing compared to following the "golden rule" and not lying. so you can conclude that the guideline to morality is much broader than these simple rules. the moral thing, in my opinion is that which causes more good that bad to as many people as possible. for example with the holocaust example, lying to the nazi's, makes the nazi's situation worse, but it saves the lives of innocent people and as a result is moraly good because the good far out ways the bad.
-so the moral thing to do is that which causes more good than bad.

2) -there are millions of people around the world that are dying because of overpopulation. overpopulation doesn't mean a lot of people living in the same place. overpop. is when a group of people use more resources than is necisary and safe for the world and its inhabitants. for example, 5 people living in the suburbs of america are more overpopulated in comparison with 20 people living in mongolia because, those five people (though living in the same area of land) spend much more resources than all the 20 in mongolia. this is what i mean by overpopulation and this is why millions are dying throughout the world from famine, disease, etc. and since reproduction and urban sprawl is increasing exponentialy, there will be a point when the earth will not have enough energy to fuel all the people living on it.-something's got to give, is it life?

now the scary part- isn't killing moral?
now, if you agree with the first two points, then the only logical conclusion is that killing should be considered moraly correct. here's my reasoning: we all agree that millions are dying because of overpopulation, so doesn't killing prevent this? don't we by killing people prevent overpopulation? killing is a form of population control. one argument is that by killing people on purpose, you are still killing people and it is the same as if people are killed from overpopulation. however this is not true because overpopulation increases exponentially- one person produces two others, each of those produce two others, each of those produce two others, and so on. by stopping the process at that first step, you are preventing all those others from overpopulating and causing more deaths. another arguement might be that killing people is just plain wrong. but isn't allowing overpopulation and as a result more killing even more wrong? if we can stop suffering but don't, isn't that the worse wrong? can't overpopulation be stopped by killing? the only other way of stopping overpopulation is through education, however i fear that that will take far to long, much longer than it will take to use up the world's resources. (perhaps the mear mention of making killing legal and okay will make people realize the effects of overpopulation)

i think this is the reason there is killing in the world. i think that human beings have reached a level where physical evolution doesn't need to take place, and indstead phsycological and social evolution takes place. i think because of this, and because of the dangers of overpopulation, nature has taken a course towards people killing people (whether through regular crimes or through mass deaths by war) as a way to compensate for overpopulation. maybe we are headed towards an apocalypse, not in the religious sence, but in the social evolutionary sense.


people, please do not think that i believe killing is okay and good, this is an extraordinarily extreme stream of thought that ran through my head. it is just that the world of today makes us wonder about things like this because of the injustices and craziness allready in the world.

once again, please, PLEASE, prove me wrong, these are grim thoughts and thoughts that i would hate if they were true. i would love, to learn that all of these things i have written are wrong and that i have wasted my time in writing them.

[pce]

i don't know if anyone read my insanely long post or not but, after rethinking my previous thoughts, i have changed my view:

killing within the species is not moral, it is wrong, because we have no right under any circumstance to decide who should live and who should die.

however, i think that since there there is nothing to control the human population, no diseases, no predators, etc., the phenomenon of killing within the species evolved into the mindset of the human race in general. when the population of rabbits rises, the population of wolves will rise also because the food source is better. when the wolves' population rises, the rabbits' lowers because of the rise of predators. then as the food source diminishes, the wolf population will lower again. then because of the lack of predators, the rabbits' population will rise again and the cycle will go on. this cycle and balance has long been disrupted in the human pop. first there were predators, but since the discovery of tools, that counterbalance was lost. then there was disease, and with the advancement of modern technology and science, that counterbalance was lost. i think that the next counterbalance is killing within the species- we are our own predators. and as long as the population will continue to rise at an uncontrolable rate, killing will also increase until the balance is found, this is regardless of wether we are living under communism, capitalism, or anything else.

it is like if you had a bowl of beans. if every day you ate two and one was replaced, there would soon be a time when you would realize that the beans are running out. you will then udjust your eating to one a day so that the quantity would remain stable. however, if ever day there were 100 beans added to every two you eat, you would slowly realize that you can eat more than two per day. your daily intake would increase untill you find the balance like before.

[rebel7609]

>i think this is the reason there is killing in the world.

There is killing in this world because of a lack of respect for life. It's scary and it sucks. And it seems as if it will only get worse before it gets any better.

p.s. I don't think your post was insane OR too long. I like the bean story. I've never heard anyone compare life to a bowl of beans. Cherries and lemons, yes. Beans, no.

[DaNatural]

pce no i dont think your crazy, your point was extreme but i think population control already exists in secretive ways. first of all i wanna talk about a solution to overpopulation. how bout using the land provided? instead of cramming everyone into one area use the whole of the land. combine the rural with the urban. i believe general mao did this and to some degree it worked. also you made the point yourself, we are abusing the natural resources of the land if we use the resources as needed, then it wont be a problem. as for current population control we have aids, which im sure could be treated and fixed but it costs to much money! along with people dying from cancer, lack of beds at a hospital and so many other reasons. so we already have population control, and the excuse so that all this doesnt sound so cold blooded is that there isnt enough money. money over people is the slogan of the world today. peace

[Guest]

http://www.zeropopulationgrowth.org

[pce]

i'm not sure about the exact figures, but the birth rate is amazingly and frightenly higher than the death rate. therefore the deseases you speek of DaNatural, cancer/aids/etc, are not enough. many types of cancer are pretty easy to get rid of in more advanced societies (remember, these are the ones that are more overpopulated than the 3rd world contries) as long as there is early detection. as a result, less and less people are killed from them, and there are still more and more advancements being made. the death rate from cancer is decreasing. also-about aids, the biggest problems with aids are in third world countries, especially the african countries, and once again these places are not the problem. also, right now, with money (lots of it) aids is not a problem either (an example is magic johnson the basketball player). in the future the costs for this will also fall and aids will be much easier to control by all. as for hunger and famine, this is again only a problem in poor and less developed countries that don't waste so many resources. none of these factors are a population control, at least they won't be for long. the only form of, i think, population control that's on the rise is killing within the species. and i'm not saying killing is good and okay, in fact it is terrible and i am even against capital punishment, but because of people irresponsibility thus far towards the envoronment, it is on the rise an maybe even necissary if the irresponsibility continues.

also, using all of the land will only make people think there is still room and that the population too high. besides overpopulation isn't a problem of "how many people per square mile," but a problem of "how much resource per person."

[DaNatural]

pce, cancer recently has become better medicated but things in the health world are not getting better. due to "money" hospitals are short on beds even here in the "Great" country of canada people who are suppopsed to recieve health care are not getting it. here are some other population controls, the other day my friend, who is black was walking thru a housing project , called regent park, while he was walking thru there the POLICE! are seated in there car, look at him and pull their trigger fingers at him. my point is keeping minorities bogged down in the ghettos is a form of population control not even the cops are on the peoples sides. they want to see them plummit, bringing drugs into the community, liquor stores on every corner etc. this is another form of population control and dont think that just because cancer is being treated effectively now that something else wont begin popping up or some small things will begin popping up to make sure that lives are lost. peace

[pce]

you are right diseases and medical problems do still cause deaths. but you must agree that the birth rate is higher. not only that, but the birth rate is increasing constantly and exponentialy. people are always talking about ways of making medical care easier, cheaper, and more efficient. i understand that things always pop up, but it seems like the second they do, people are trying to find a way to prevent lives from being lost. i only propose that killing is another one of those things that have popped up, but this time, instead of being an external factor that can be fought, it is an internal factor-the human psyche.

also when you say "due to "money" hospitals are short on beds even here in the "Great" country of canada people who are suppopsed to recieve health care are not getting it," this only applies to the poor, and the poor don't usually use up as much resources as the rich. it doesn't matter how many beds there are, if the owner of WalMart is sick, he's gonna get the best medical attention. meanwhile the people working in the sweat shops that make his products won't. and he's the one you is using up the most resources, not only in his own home, but with his nationwide stores, the electric/gas/plastic/etc. items he sells to millions throughout the world, and much more.