Thanks Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pj

You need to fly over the middle of the US sometime if you are worried about overpopulation.

We have been carefully taught that people are the problem. How could that be? Without people, there are no problems - sure... but that is the same twisted logic that leads to the notion that suicide is a solution to a situation or problem.

Remember the Population Bomb? That was the big indoctrination back when I was in middles school. We were all expected to starve by 1980.

'Cept we didnt'. Because PEOPLE CREATE WEALTH.

Wealth isn't just cash, my friend. It is food. It is technology. It is art. It is what free people do when they are permitted to... and when they not rewarded for NOT being productive, which is what collectivism does.

If I may suggest, pick up a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and dig in. You might learn that selfishness - RATIONAL selfishness - is a virtue.[/b]

---

I am not sure if you are calling me irrational. But that is just my case. I believe it to BE rational.
You should try a flight over China, India, Africa, Japan, Mexico.
All those things you point out are worthless if it is out resourced.
I think a study of microeconomics is more in order than what you call, "suicide." Wow. I have heard the argument before about abortion being suicide, but never have I heard of choosing to not have children like some kind of preemptive suicide. Beleive me. The population is not going to decline provided that there is no mass pandemic.
Sure it is easy to have that outlook in our nice urban setting. But there is a line between creating stable ergonomics and creating a need for dwindling resources.

ummm ... going back a bit, how did you guys get in debt in the first place? I always thought you guys were rich?

Eh... I'm not looking to takes sides or argue - just thought I'd bring up a couple things regarding overpopulation and people creating wealth:

• Life expectancy keeps growing due to today's advances in healthcare and technology. These "new births" certainly have the potential to contribute greatly to our society. Such an extended life expectancy, however, will eventually reach a point to where it is no longer whithin nature's intent.
  
  Now, of course you could say that this growth in population is balanced out with the spread of new diseases. But, here again you have these new diseases being formed through those same "new births" who also have the potential to grow up to someday fuck a chimp and start an epidemic.

It seems to be one big cycle. Personally, I think while there have been other hard times in our world history (plagues, world wars, etc), it's hard to compare the issues from those days to those of today. Why? Because of people! Us. We change. I, unfortuntately, think it has been for the worse. Corruption and greed has always existed- but today it seems to be much more accepted than in the past. So many things that were taboo less than a century ago are just the norm or casual today. I just feel that we (as a society) are going back to our neandrethal, primal "hunt or be hunted" selves. Only difference is back then we hunted in packs and used rocks and spears. Today we have nuclear, atomic and biochemical weapons that can be propelled out across oceans -- and only a handfull of individuals with the power to do use them. :|

No, Howitzer - I'm not calling you irrational. "Rational Selfishness" is a precept in the philosophy of Objectivism, which was Rand's thing - hence the reference to "Atlas Shrugged". It is carefully differentiated from irrational selfishness - that being a total "take whatever you can get" attitude. Rational selfishness is self preservation, and the recognition that without self-preservation there really isn't anything else anyway.

Here's the problem, worded in another way. You have group A, who do not believe in human liberty, women's rights, freedom of choice or freedom of religion or anything else... but who do believe they are ordained by God to increase their population and take that mandate very seriously as part of converting the entire world to their belief and legal systems. Then you have group B who value human liberty and freedom and all else, but who are worried about the planet's ability to sustain life, the quality of life of their offspring, have been frightened into believing that we're all gonna die in 50 years, etc... and are making the seemingly rational choice of not increasing their population - or even maintaining it.

Yes, the population will continue growing. Given this scenario - which is a very real analogy of the world we live in today - what do you really think this old world is going to look like in another century?

In my humble opinion, I think it is a selfish thing NOT to have children. Again though - remember that I DO consider selfishness a virtue - if it is rational selfishness and not simply self-sacrifice.

(I'm not really an objectivist per se... but this probably isn't the place or thread to get into that.)

lemme sum all this up.

Most politicians are scum. They flip-flop on their "beliefs" as much as they want, so long as their agenda is fulfilled.

Clinton was a hypocrite. No argument there, i assume? Hillary is extremely dangerous and probably dirty. Allowing her to reign as president will hasten the downfall of the US. No argument there too, right?

Bush is not immune to this either. But hey, that guy just had bad luck (from the mistakes of former presidents). But what he does is still inexcusable.

So when it comes to politicians, I say.....fuck'em? Yeea, that hit the nail on the head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pj

No, Howitzer - I'm not calling you irrational. "Rational Selfishness" is a precept in the philosophy of Objectivism, which was Rand's thing - hence the reference to "Atlas Shrugged". It is carefully differentiated from irrational selfishness - that being a total "take whatever you can get" attitude. Rational selfishness is self preservation, and the recognition that without self-preservation there really isn't anything else anyway.[/b]

---

I misunderstood. That makes more sense.
Do you beleive that there would be a big enough movement of selfish people who choose to not bare children to make an impact on the actual population?

Quote:

---

In my humble opinion, I think it is a selfish thing NOT to have children. Again though - remember that I DO consider selfishness a virtue - if it is rational selfishness and not simply self-sacrifice.[/b]

---

Not having children is not self sacrifice. I don't understand by what standard it would be rational selfishness to consider a lifestyle for a future generation and try to maintain a better standard of living, if not even for the unfortunate sake of your own children.

Good points about the population. And this is in more advanced educated countries that fall behind those of many of the third world nations in population turnover.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("T Joe")</div>

Quote:

---

Life expectancy keeps growing due to today&#39;s advances in healthcare and technology. These "new births" certainly have the potential to contribute greatly to our society. Such an extended life expectancy, however, will eventually reach a point to where it is no longer whithin nature&#39;s intent.

Now, of course you could say that this growth in population is balanced out with the spread of new diseases. But, here again you have these new diseases being formed through those same "new births" who also have the potential to grow up to someday fuck a chimp and start an epidemic.[/b]

---

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("keeper")</div>

Quote:

---

ummm ... going back a bit, how did you guys get in debt in the first place? I always thought you guys were rich?[/b]

---

Well we look rich on paper. Much like every ones credit card debt. There is debt to other nations and debt to the civilians. It is to complicated to go into detail...I am tired.
Good discussion guys :&#33;: