Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_A
Hi She-Ra,
Pestilence and shortages of food, water & energy are a consequence of over population, which naturally will control to a certain degree populations.
The political problem is that expansion or growth has always been seen as something of success and hs always been encouraged.
The economical stress now is caused by the fact that consumption has all but stopped growing and in some cases is receeding.
As a solution for population growth, I can only see systems like the Chinese are imposing, which is ironic as China is the most highly populated country in the world at the moment.
I have been thinking a great deal about this and am currently searching for a peaceful way of reducing the population, however, my opinion would be deemed by the Catholic church as obscene. I would encourage women and men (especially the men) after their first child to steralization until the population is reduced to a more manageable number.
With less people on the planet there will be more resources for the world, everybody could die naturally in peace and there would be less need for war.
As for what type of people they wish to remain after reduction I would imagine that people who contribute something will be those who are spared, for example, great minds, intellects, younger, stronger people preferably actively employed so thay can show immediately their talent.
Those people who are of low intelligence, who suck the system rather than contribute to the system can be sacrificed. I also think that the elderly will be spared out of respect of their contribution to society during their 'active' era of their lives.
It's a great topic for discussion.
Best regards,
Steve
Best regards,
Steve
|
I agree Steve, I was going to mention China too and that at the moment is seems our governing bodies might not want to place overt stipulations in that way. I also agree on people thinking more about whether they can and should reproduce and that contraception (including reversible vasectomies) is much easier and safer for men biologically than for women but unfortunately the question of trust comes into that which is why many advisors put the onus on the female. Then there is society's attitude towards females and maternity in general which does not help.
What you have said in regards to the people who would be chosen or left is interesting - I suppose I'm wondering if complex social structure fits into the planning at all or if many of us will be looked upon as a base labour force perhaps regardless of intelligence or ability, physical or mental. I'm wondering about that in part because I don't believe that live in a meritocratic society and that many people end up in jobs or professions that they aren't primarily 'suited' to or would have chosen for themselves, they may be good at what they do but also have skills and knowledge elsewhere. But if mass culling were to take place it would seem too much bother to discriminate and find who would be best for what on an individual basis and irrespective of what they were currently doing - it would seem more efficient to just take the 'best and brightest' of the professions they want, from manual labour to doctors, based on who is in the field already?