Overpopulation

I would advocate mass sterilization and even euthanasia. A more moderate thing to do would be to have the 1 child policy worldwide. It has failed China because people have been having more males then females. They have been abortion countless female babies. To counter this abortion should be have a heavy tax on it, if not outright criminalized. I have read countless horror stories about abortion. I would say it should only be legal if the women is raped, the child is malformed/retarded/disabled or the pregnancy is dangerous to her health. If something is not done about overpopulation there will be heavy consequences. I can see people dieing in their tens of billions a few decades from now.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I would advocate mass sterilization and even euthanasia. A more moderate thing to do would be to have the 1 child policy worldwide. It has failed China because people have been having more males then females. They have been abortion countless female babies. To counter this abortion should be have a heavy tax on it, if not outright criminalized. I have read countless horror stories about abortion. I would say it should only be legal if the women is raped, the child is malformed/retarded/disabled or the pregnancy is dangerous to her health. If something is not done about overpopulation there will be heavy consequences. I can see people dieing in their tens of billions a few decades from now.

I don't understand how you can support a policy as extreme as euthanasia on the one hand, and yet oppose abortion on the other. Surely early trimester abortions, wherein a fetus hasn't developed a central nervous system and obviously possesses no consciousness, is preferable to euthanasia or mass sterilization.

Of all the issues facing human survival at the moment, overpopulation, while undoubtedly important, is not the prime concern. Global climate change threatens human survival far more than overpopulation. Moreover, it must be stressed that resource depletion corresponds more to the relative level of economic development than it does to population size. What must be done is a scaling back of consumption in developed nations (which can be accomplished via an increase in leisure time and an ecologically sensitive pricing mechanism) and a gradual increase in consumption in the global south. Only the most utopian of minds could imagine that this can be accomplished within the context of capitalism, so a revolutionary transformation in economic relations is a requisite condition.

There is a debate in when life starts, some say it starts at contraception but I am not sure. I support the serialization and euthanasia of people that are more trouble then they are worth. Some fetuses are more trouble then they are worth but sterilization will stop such fetuses from being conceived. I do suppose a few fetuses will have to be aborted, especially during the early years of this program. Abortion is a big problem for China but it is not as much of a problem in many other nations. Anti-abortion as a weapon to be used against having a population that has to many people of a single gender. I personally say abortion is way down on the list for most other nations.

Overpopulation is a much greater concern then climate change. Developed nations need to scale back their consumption as well as reducing the population. The developing nations should do so as well.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:There is a debate in when life starts, some say it starts at contraception but I am not sure.

There is a fairly wide scientific consensus on the time required for a central nervous system and brain to develop in utero. The question then becomes what exactly defines human life. Personally, I believe that it is our consciousness which distinguishes us from other lifeforms. However, for those who value all lifeforms equally, the most important trait to consider is sentience. Early trimester abortions can offend no one who defines life according to those materialist criteria. Now, I realize that certain religions believe that life begins at conception, but they're reason for believing so is entirely scriptural. That's not to suggest that they shouldn't have the right to oppose the practice, but considering the irrational basis of their stance on the issue, a secular government cannot allow religious faith alone to influence civil rights legislation. Religious individuals obviously have a right to abstain from the practice themselves, and even attempt to convince others of the validity of their views on the matter, but that should be the extent of their actions on the issue, in my opinion.

I support the serialization and euthanasia of people that are more trouble then they are worth.

That's a pretty vague standard by which to decide life and death. Aside from the various problems which would inevitably arise when attempting to implement such policies, it should be mentioned that unintended consequences stem from every decision. If, for example, antiquated eugenic laws were maintained and practiced in the UK, it's possible that the world would have never known the scientific theories developed by Stephen Hawking.

I'm not entirely averse to policies which may advocate certain sterilizations or even instances of euthanasia, but they pertain to criminal justice. I do, however, oppose such practices for issues related to population control because I don't believe they would be politically feasible or ethically justifiable.

Overpopulation is a much greater concern then climate change.

I don't think you fully appreciate the magnitude of the problems global climate change will cause in the years ahead. For example, within our lifetime, we are going to experience famines related to temperature changes which will lead to mass starvation in certain parts of the world (to say nothing of the geopolitical tensions which will ensue as a result). Innumerable species are also going to go extinct, the ecological impact of which we cannot even being to measure. Unless radical changes are made soon, I shudder to think what obstacles subsequent generations will face.

Developed nations need to scale back their consumption as well as reducing the population. The developing nations should do so as well.

I agree.