A solution to poverty and overpopulation!!
“Mr. President, we need a solution to end with poverty and overpopulation in our country!”
“Easy. Kill every poor person there is.”
Yeah, I know it’s kind of a dumb question…
But, assuming you wouldn’t do it, why wouldn’t you?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
@trek79, Your questions cover interesting moral, philosophical and economic aspects, and I am not in a place to answer that, since I really cannot give you an objective opinion. To be completely honest, I would have a very hard time sacrificing all the luxury that I have right now, but that would hardly even make a change anyway. I stick by my values to do good with the things I am capable of, the money that I am making, the knowledge that I have, not only for myself, but for as many other people as well. You know, it is a conscious choice we can all make, it does not really matter how rich or poor you are, as long as your intentions are good.
I agree with a lot of your points in your first post, but it is really wishful thinking that if businesses, corporations and industries would provide in education, this would solve the problem. The political climate, along with people their mentality and believes, along with the natural climate are all factors interconnected with each other, and they all need to be changed, in order to get the changes necessary.
However, why will this not work and will it lead to a global collapse eventually? Because we cannot all be as wealthy as we are right now. We need those poor people for the overall equilibrium in the world.
That is why I asked if people are really willing to give up what they have in order to help fight world poverty.
“This makes sense because when all these poverty people become productive they attain the kind of money to start spending, and all the business that invested now has a larger consumer base to make even more money from”
Yes, but this will retaliate itself, because of my above mentioned points. We need poor people to keep the prices low.
Capitalism is a beautiful system and as NON system every created before, it has helped MOST people out of poverty than ANY system before (even combined), therefore people fighting against capitalism, have simply no idea, are naive and ignorant. However, capitalism should be controlled more than it is right now, putting boundaries on immens non proportional salaries and creating stricter regulation to prevent fraud and the like. But then again, mankind would not have to be as corrupt as it is.
Just one more thing.
You know, all these people making these so called ‘donations’ to charities (a donation of 0,0001% of your salary is just pathetic by the way), are just hypocrites. If you really want to help, you would really put some effort, rather than clearing your conscious by such a ridiculous thing as donating 1 dollar/euro a month to a charity where 80% of your dollar/euro will not go to the place intended anyway, and which does not mean any sacrifice whatsoever.
If people would truly have to put effort in doing something to help this problem, you would suddenly see a drastic decrease in these so called altruistic people.
Easy, stop sharing the planet irrationally, and let all nations do as they will. Let nature take its course with our planet and do what is necessary for nations. They ought to, for instance, expand and contract according to their needs and desires (yes, that means EXPANDING is necessary).
I think there is a population problem and I think that making people pass a parent competency test after having 1 child should be mandatory so the certification could go on to say only if you are wealthy and established AND competent, can you have more then one child. The world would be a lovely fucking place :)
The thing is, anyone’s wealth can change. A person may become rich, and by their own choices or by circumstances beyond their control, they may again become poor. And rich again, and poor again, etc. The point is, no one’s economic situation is necessarily, absolutely, 100% fixed in any direction. So would a rich person then who advocates killing the poor (as some surely do) up and march themselves off to the gas chamber when their fortunes take a turn for the worse? I think not.
Poverty has the potential to become anyone’s problem, it’s not just for “dumb people” or people “unfit to survive”. Anyone poor can become rich, and anyone rich can become poor, and so on and so forth. I have a pretty good feeling that the OP was merely asking this question for the sake of asking the question…..but there are unfortunately people in this world who sincerely believe this. That’s what I don’t understand, because I don’t think they would kill themselves if they became poor. It’s hypocrisy.
@alexunknown, “Easy. Kill every poor person there is.” I’m saying that realistically, you can’t go out and start methodically culling the population like that.
The most realistic method to “kill every poor person there is” would be to send them to war. A paltry little international conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq wouldnt be enough to eliminate a number of people on the kind of scale that (I think) you’re talking about–you’d need a war of a much grander scale…eg World War III.
Either that or I completely misinterpreted what you meant by “Easy. Kill every poor person there is.”
It would be nice if….. one day we would be able to educate everyone enough to make them realize having 100 babies isn’t the best option for them/ the world. And how/where to get condoms.
Educated people tend to be less prolific as well, so that’s a nice side effect…
We could just make movies about how awesome it is to get sterilized and/or just promote things like condoms, instead of having movies with pregnant women and large families in them like they are making them now. Propagangnam style!
Studies show that the poor are more empathetic than the rich, so getting the rich to cooperate won’t be easy.
Extra planetary colonization would provide a solid solution.
A more humane version of eugenics would work too, but that method would require messing around with evolution, which is like playing with fire.
@liammcfeely, I agree that there will always be a “poor” population, the people with the least. But I think what we’re discussing here is that that lowest income level should not be struggling to eat and for medicine and such. I think it’s less concern for equal classes, and more concern for people being able to have a secure lifestyle.
@everymorningbornfromtheashes, Don’t think I would ever agree with that, that is what Nazi’s and bat shit crazy dictators do. I do agree that some people aren’t suitable candidates for parenthood but you cannot legislate testicles, ovaries and wombs.
@alexunknown, America, I’m assuming that is where your from from the “Mr. President” bit, does not have an overpopulation problem, a wealth distribution problem perhaps. The world also does not have a overpopulation problem, just a population distribution problem. I couldn’t care less what population or poverty problems countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or European states think they have, because when you look at Africa or India it is not important. The real question should be “Mr. President what are you going to do for the third world”.
P.s. if the US introduced a decent social welfare system they would greatly improve the situation of it’s lower classes and bring a shitload of people over the poverty line.