Killing off the humans

The problem is one of consistency. Your standard directly implies that law determines value. Which country's law? Which laws from that country? There are only two ethically consistent standards for killing people off. You kill everyone, or you kill no one. Both everyone and no one include you into their ranks. There are more non-violent criminals than all violent criminals combined in the United States. Killing off non-violent protestors, tax evaders and drug related people would not help the people, would it? Those who remained would not live happily in the least. You may have full-on revolts on your hands. You would have more trouble on your hands than before. You might as well say that you wanted to end us with war. If your goal is to save the planet, then put aside human laws, and decide that the species itself needs to go, or needs to stay.

 

People like this make me wonder why humans are still around. Sir your logic is faulty at best and I am damn sure it would change if you were on the other side.

 

^ This.

I' d also like to add those who ended up in jail for a crime they didn' t commit, which could happen to any self-proclaimed "more valuable than some" person.

 

You do realise that some of the most pious, and morally upstanding citizens in history have been imprisoned at some point in their lives, correct?

Bapu Gandhi was the first man to advocate non-violent revolution. He was imprisoned because the government in power saw him as a threat to their well being. He is now considered to be the father of modern India, as well as an inspiration to many.
One of the people he inspired was Martin Luther King Jr, an activist against the racial divide in America, who was locked up for putting schemes in place such as boycotting bus travel by all black Americans he could persuade, which eventually landed him in jail.
Another man who went to jail for over 15 years in order to break down the social divide in his country was Nelson Mandela, another man who was imprisoned for not following the pro-white laws in his country.

Criminals are not rabid dogs, they are humans. They have thoughts, feelings, emotions, familys and friends. And more often then you'd believe they want to change their life into something more honest, even though they are pressured otherwise. Do not think prisoners as easily disposable.

 

When did I say we should leave this planet behind, quit putting words in my text. I said we need to expand human life out further into the universe. Eventually the planet would need to be evacuated (especially if Andromeda continues on it's course to a collision with the Milky Way) Also there are tons of planets out there, they just aren't inhabitable yet. And why are you looking so close to the immediate future. I know more than likely I will be dead before I get to see anything like it, but there will more than likely come a time when it happens. I mean, do you honestly think we are the only living creatures in the universe? There has to be other life out there somewhere. No I don't mean take over some other planet and destroy it, why do you guys think i'm h*** bent on destroying the f****n planet when all i've been doing is trying to come up with ways to expand human life to reduce population without killing anyone and allowing the earth to return to a better state?

 

Am i going to get in trouble for starting a thread like this where people are actually discussion the idea of killing of someone, "Only in America..."

Anyway i do not believe that we can create a habitat on a different planet to save humanity because the rate of the earth dieing is 10x faster than the of creating rate of space travel. But there is aways the that one in a 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance that we can be sitting next to a wormhole that would lead to a different planet than an another billion chance to find that planet to be habitable. But yet again the chance are very slim so i do not approve of space travel to save humanity. But you never know the universe are filled with so many possibilities so i believe it when i see it.

 

Hey guys, this isn't the first time we've had to tell you to calm down in this thread, so please stay civil and stay on topic, otherwise the thread will likely be closed. If you have a problem with someone you can resolve it privately.
Thanks.

 

I believe over time like in other cases the earth tries to rebuild itself by creating a disease or a sickness to kill off people to correct itself. Soon it will happen again. Another Black Plague of the sort will appear and then will disappear out of nowhere. The fact that there are more people on the earth and the more interactive as a whole nowadays, more people will be killed off and it will be difficult to survive. Therefore people DO have to die. It's just nature just as we kill animals such as mosquitoes, flies, wasps, bees, alligators, dangerous dogs, etc for our safety the earth will kill us off for its own safety. In the end the Earth is above everyone in power.

 

I don't think people should be killed because of a reason like this.
Seems a bit cruel.

Though the world is a bit over-populated.
Just let whatever happens happen, I say.

 

I've read stuff like this many times (Maybe TOO much.) I disagree that we should kill off humans, but set a limit on how many children you have (Like The Shadow Children Series) or come up with an age to stop giving birth (Like the MATCHED triology and The Uglies Series (Sorta)). But, if the future wants to kill off certain humans, that's fine with me even though I don't like it (Like Ikigami: The Ultimate Limit and The Hunger Games Triology)

 

No way. What would be the punishment to avoid this? Would you force people to have a vasectomy? If so, fuck no. It would make some people getting rid of their child if it's a girl, because there is more in it for the parents if they have a son.

 

...No. I was talking about a limit. Like 2 or 3. No Gender-getting-rid-of, no vasectomies, etc.
And with the age, I wasn't talking about a vasectomy. End of story.

 

You're kidding me right? I believe the death toll is already as high as it is, population will always be a problem no matter how you look at it, killing innocent people for a cause it just plain murder. Besides we have enough murders in the world anyway, so why bother?

 

How exactly do you plan to set such a limit? What would be the punishment for breaking it?

You are not thinking deeply.

 

The limit I'm leaving to the goverment. And yes. There will be a punishment for breaking the limit.

 

You did not answer either of the questions I gave you. You have no vision for this limit, nor do you have a set punishment in mind.

Your idea is so vague that I cannot take it seriously. Please try again.

 

I answered question 2, yet you didn't see that. My answer was yes. The punishment will be the goverment's decision.
As for the 1st one, The answer is: I can't. I'm just suggesting. I didn't mean for it to go this far. =(

 

It was not a true or false question. I asked you what you personally would punish people with, if you were put in charge of it.

 

The point was that you have to have thought the argument through. I understand your idea, but it won't work out. You don't realize it because you don't have anything to back it up with. You (government etc) has no right to tell someone how many children to have. If I am not wrong, China has already implemented this, and it leads tot he abandoning of daughters because the parents want to have a son instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy <- There is a link explaining it. (Note the Effects on female population part) [I know Wikipedia is not a good source, but too lazy to find others]

 

As far as we can tell it' s because of cultural differences. For example some religious rites addressed to deceased ancestors can only be performed by a male family member. Those cultural differences are slightly shown in Mulan. Also sex equality isn' t exactly enforced in Chinese society.

India doesn' t have a one-child policy and yet it has an astounding female abortion rate, also for cultural reasons (for instance in India raising a boy is much cheaper than raising a girl).

I guess those countries could forbid doctors to reveal the child sex as long as the mother can legally abort, it would prevent sex-selective abortions. That doesn' t seem to be what the Chinese government has in mind, they intend to change the cultural outlook on female children, and enforce sex equality in society.

If one-child policies were to be enforced in the US or in Europe I' m not sure it would lead to a gender imbalance. I would only vouch for such a policy as a last resort (if the situation really calls for it and no one can think of an alternative solution).