Humans are plague on Earth - Page 19

On January 26 2013 03:59 coverpunch wrote:
Adam Smith wrote in 1776 that European peasants wouldn't trade places with African kings, such was the difference that economics had made to the betterment of their lives.

Anyone who says they want to trade places with our caveman ancestors or something akin to it because of some perceived struggle in our lives is an idiot.

By the way, is any other part of northern hemisphere this bloody fucking cold? If I didn't know any better, I'd think we are experiencing Ice Age! Bloody hell!

On January 26 2013 16:15 Zahir wrote:
Look, you certainly seem like a deep thinker and you hold some interesting views, even pleasant views, I mean, who doesn't love dolphins? But this is an argument about population control, with a highly regarded celebrity/activist/etc advocating that the governments of the world should come together to implement population controls... a policy that has been shown to be extremely repressive, requiring brutal measures to enforce.

He also gives specific mention to one of the world's more vulnerable countries, hinting at the typical euro-centric attitude of forcing others to conform to our ideals in a manner most beneficial to ourselves, not so much for them. It's the same strain running through colonialism, neoliberalism, etc. Let's just get together and use our traditional methods for controlling the world to force other nations (and we all know exactly which ones it'll be, not any western ones that's for sure) into not having many kids, not developing industries, not tampering with rainforests, etc. Nevermind that most industrialized nations have already burned through their natural resources and developed mammoth populations that consume and pollute like crazy. No one else should have the right to develop, only us. Ethiopia should remain a nice wildlife preserve for privileged explorers and conservationists from the civilized parts of the globe to visit, how dare they keep breeding, what a filthy plague, etc. And so many kids in this thread seem to be down with this, because they have a negative view on humanity, not realizing that their blithe agreement that humans are a plague plays right into the hands of people who want to make the problem worse.

So while I'd ordinarily be cool with sitting back and letting you believe as you believe, at this particular moment, your fond feelings towards dolphins and assumptions about the limits of science and technology in the inconceivably far flung future are contributing to a general feeling of antipathy towards humanity, potentially causing people to not see worldwide, forced population control for the horror that it is. I'd say more, but frankly, I don't see any objective basis for argument as you've defined your 'game of life' in very strange, subjective ways. Fun is not a measurable metric, unless we want to take it out of the subjective realm and measure it via say, electrical patterns in the brain. And come ON, man, surely some part of you must realize it is absurd to think we know all there is to know about the heat death of the universe or the inevitable failure of technology and science somewhere 10 to the 100th power years from now.

On January 25 2013 03:43 Shival wrote:


I never seem to understand where this defeatist attitude comes from. Can you name any species that has done 'better' than us, gone further than us?

On January 26 2013 16:15 Zahir wrote:
...hinting at the typical euro-centric attitude of forcing others to conform to our ideals in a manner most beneficial to ourselves...

On January 26 2013 17:43 Blargh wrote:
When people say "nature will balance it all out" do they mean that Earth will be total shit and everything will die and thus it will start the cycle over? Because I think, as a progressive person, that this would be quite a bit of a setback. Let's refrain from using totally retarded, bad arguments/reasoning.

Anyway, population growth is clearly a problem which many individuals care little for. Having more people means that we need to have that much more resources, which would require a higher rate of production, which is just not possible. Trees for instance, will not grow back any faster when we have more people. Just think though, if everyone had only 1 kid instead of 2+ for 5 generations, then we'd have half the population we do now! It's that easy!!

Also, why do people who are poor and live in harsh conditions think it is at all a good idea to have a child? So they can share the same pain?? It's always bewildered me. Maybe they are hoping their precious child will work so they can survive.

On January 27 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:


Well, you're taking what I said completely out of context and applying it to something else. The quote chain got broken, but my discussion stemmed from this:



Thus I made the argument that dolphins are doing better, it didn't have much to do with population control. So we are arguing about two different things. I also think you might be reading too much into what was said, though I will agree with you that when he said humans were a plague (even though you could easily define them as such and it is logical and sound) it fanned the flames of extremism that humans were bad (which I do not believe). But I would like discuss this because it could be interesting:


It has to do with moral obligations.

Just because someone beats their wife, doesn't mean it gives the right to someone else to beat their wife. And if we couldn't stop the first person from beating their wife, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop the second person. Apply that logic to Ethiopia and the third world industrializing in ways that destroy the environment. We all know the Western World did the same thing a few hundred years ago. And one big difference is that the Western World didn't know about the effects of pollution at the time. So, we didn't know wife beating was bad, but now that we do, we have a moral obligation to stop it.

You might ask why... your opposition of population control and disdain for the euro-centric attitude appears (and I could be very wrong, I apologize if I am) centered in the idea that people shouldn't tell others what to do. That we have no right run around thinking we are smart, and have "privileged" information telling people what they can or cannot do, especially those who don't enjoy the same economic status that we do, because people might abuse such a privilege and use it to keep other people from advancing their status.

But we do. Not only do we have the right, we have the obligation to if we are moral.

I used to think we didn't, and as I sat in Professor Patrick Derr's class on medical ethics I felt like I was the only person who wasn't an idiot. Everyone was espousing these terribly radical "liberal" beliefs (and I am a liberal myself) that the we had a moral obligation to shut down bath houses in San Francisco when HIV began spreading, that we shouldn't allow cigarette sales, force people to do this and that, because we know what is best. To this day, I still deplore those ideas, because I think people should have the right to make their own choices as much as possible in life.

However, there was one example that stopped me dead in my tracks. Pharmaceutical companies test drugs in African, countries that don't have laws to protect people. There is essentially no "informed consent" nor do the companies have to compensate people or treat those who suffer side effects.

They companies do however, get consent from people, and do compensate people. Basically a company finds a remote area where the people are uneducated and unable to fully comprehend modern medicine and side effects, and tell them they'll give them a small amount of money nowhere near what they'd have to compensate people in the West to test these drugs. Generally the head of a household will decide for everyone in their family whether or not to test the drugs.

When I said I believed this shouldn't be legal, the class laid into me, mocking me for my beliefs that everyone should make their own decisions regarding anything, and that we shouldn't apply our moral code to other people. Most of the class even went so far as to say that I was wrong, that the tribe or community, even though they could not fully understand what the drugs might do, could make their own decision regarding whether they wanted to test them, and that I was being an elitist by saying it shouldn't be legal. They felt I was saying that those people weren't good enough to make their own decision. And that is true, but in my view, I was just trying to protect them from being exploited, the same way our laws protect us from being exploited when testing drugs.

My belief was that if we have laws for informed consent, treatment for adverse effects and compensation for drug testing to protect people because that is morally right (and I do believe it is morally right), then regardless of whether the people of any given area have laws regarding informed consent and compensation for drug testing, we should apply our laws to them, so we would protect other people the same way we would protect ourselves. If it isn't good enough for us, it isn't good enough for anyone.

I hate when people say things like "well I would never let my daughter be a prostitute, but I believe it should be legal" what the hell is that? So your blood is too good, but some random girl isn't good enough to be protected from living the life of a prostitute? That stinks of elitism. It is the same thing here.

And that isn't moral, and it isn't right.

I know that this thinking is a dangerous and slippery slope, and that this kind of belief, that we know what is best, has lead to genocides. But I don't think we can stand idly by when people are being suffering simply just because some people have chosen to abuse this right in the past (and we have an obligation to stop those who abuse this right). We have an obligation to protect every other human being, as we would protect ourselves. Again, if it isn't good enough for us, it isn't good enough for anyone.

If we apply this thinking to industrializing the third world, then it means we don't allow them to industrialize in a way we know will destroy their environment. But it does mean that we help them industrialize in a responsible way, and we help them educate their people, we help them get access to clean water and we don't allow them to starve to death if we can. No one starves by choice, no one chooses to be a prostitute, no one chooses to drinks dirty water when they don't have to, and no chooses to tests experimental drugs in return for a meal. People are forced into these circumstances economically, because they lack education, because they lack hope. Someone thinking people make these "choices" that that person would never even consider a "choice" is elitist and ignorant.

Standing idly by and saying "I don't tell people what to do, I don't mock how they live and tell them it isn't good enough, I don't mock the choices they'd make, even though I wouldn't make those choices or even consider those decisions a choice" while people are forced into suffering isn't moral, it is deplorable.

And with that defense of liberalism and some hope, I believe that we can find a way to institute population control in a non-oppressive manner to ensure that people live better lives all over the world. Like anything else humans do, it won't be perfect, but we can do it. And we have to do it, so we can all enjoy this world. I understand your concern regarding people abusing their knowledge and privilege, but when people abuse anything the results aren't good, this is no different. So we must recognize abuse and stop it when it happens. But don't shy away from trying institute population control because abuse will happen or because this is hard. Have hope.

On January 27 2013 03:49 KwarK wrote:
Genocides are not a product of any modern philosophy, genocides are what happens when one group of humans decide to wipe out another group. They happened throughout our prehistory and still continue to happen between uncontacted peoples who are preliterate.

On January 27 2013 04:00 KwarK wrote:
I didn't study at Clark University but I'm pretty sure everyone everywhere has always thought they're right about everything. It's quite difficult to hold a belief you know to be untrue. Even in the case of resources you believe that it is true and just that you should possess them and they disagree with you. In fact it requires resources because otherwise you can just agree to disagree and not care. An ideological conflict that lacks something physical being fought over won't escalate.

Basically, I think you're wrong (but I'm unwilling to gas you over it unless you have a gold mine that ought to be mine).

On January 27 2013 04:00 decado90 wrote:
I agree with him.

People are too hellbent on the entire 'sanctity of life' nonsense. When there are too many wolves in a population, many starve and die until the population is back to a sustainable level.

In this country, if you have a child, no matter what-- even if you can't take care of it-- you can give it to the government and they will spend money and resources to take care of it. Billions of dollars are spent keeping old people alive on machines.

I never understood the entire craze about feeding the starving children in Africa either. The continent is extremely overpopulated with most of its residents making under $1 a day and unable to feed themselves or pay taxes. What does feeding them accomplish?

Instead, we should focus on making countries sustainable and efficient. A country that farms or trades for its food and has a stable population. 20 years of youth, 40 years of work, 20 years of retirement. That should be what the government guarantees you-- after that they don't pay for your medical bills and if you or your family want to spend thousands of dollars to keep you tied to a machine go for it, otherwise die when you're old like everything else.

On January 27 2013 04:12 BronzeKnee wrote:


But there have been ideological conflicts that lacked something physical being fought over that escalated

The North didn't fight so we could take the South's slaves in the American Civil War, we fought to free them. The North could have said "sure, we can agree to disagree you can have your slaves" but the when threatened by the North simply stripping slavery from the Constitution through the democratic process, the South revolted.

It stemmed from the North believing they were "right" to free the slaves by changing the Constitution, even though it offered no benefit to them in form of resources. It was entirely based on ideology. This threat is why the South revolted, they knew it sometime in the future, they would lose their slaves, though the South will argue that the war had nothing to do with slavery, and that it was fought over states rights, ect...

I can give you other examples of conflicts that have escalated that were purely ideological. The Somalian Relief effort in 1992 is a good example. UN Forces were not fighting for any resources, they were trying to calm a conflict that was starving a nation. Purely ideological. Unfortunately, they failed.

I also believe your mistaking correlation with causation. A conflict may begin on ideological grounds, but the victor will often take the resources of the vanquished even if he didn't start the war to take those resources. Because resources were correlated in the conflict (and they always will be in warfare, a conflict cannot be fought without resources, and thus you're going to try and limit the resources or your opponent whether or not it is an ideological conflict) doesn't mean it was caused by resources.

On January 27 2013 04:24 KwarK wrote:
Secondly, just because the UN involvement started American troops on the ground does not mean that was the start of the conflict. The conflict already existed due to resources, peacekeepers arriving in an ongoing conflict and ordering both sides to stop (and therefore not gain the resources they wanted) doesn't change that. You have mistaken the nature of a conflict with the immediate reason that white faces showed up.
Thirdly, neither of those conflicts were a genocide.