There are some meaningless things people just go along with. Let me point out something that should be rather obvious, but for some reason isn't.

Ending world hunger is a bad idea.

It seems even atheists have a hard time grasping this. Bimbos in beauty pageants are trained to parrot it back whenever they're asked what they wish for. Ask any child, or naive adult, and you'll get the same wish of ending world hunger, world peace or some other inane nonsense like that.

Ever stop to think about why humans aren't supposed to interfere with nature? Why do you think it is that cameramen filming little turtles crawling into the ocean never stop help them? Why do they just stand there and watch as some of the poor little fucks get picked off my birds? Because that's how nature preserves its balance. If all of them made it to the ocean, the risk of overpopulation would be too high.

Knowing this then, why do we interfere with other humans? Why is it ethical to not interfere with nature when it's animals, but it's suddenly the complete opposite when it's humans? Why do people have such a hard time accepting that humans are no different than other animals, and that most of the world's problems are indisputably caused by human overpopulation?

7 billion people is too much as it is, and the only reason that some of these billions of people are starving to death, dying in wars, famine etc is that there's too much of them to begin with. And the solution is to stop them from dying so humanity can spread even more? How disgusting.

Every time you watch a documentary on obesity, you can be sure to hear something along the lines of "with the food thrown away in America on a daily basis you could end world hunger." Yes, and then those people would multiply, and then we're fucked again. It's a matter of thinking long term. Aiding in more people surviving is only going to cause more suffering in the long run. Earth is finite. Resources are finite. And thanks to religion we're wasting precious time and money on arguing about matters that are apparently more important, such as who should be allowed to marry whom, and so are yet nowhere near to colonizing space. It's simply irresponsible to suggest every human should be saved.

Famine, disease and even war are nature's way of keeping our numbers at bay, and we arrogantly struggle against that. We're so fucking precious aren't we? No. Humans are no different than any other resource. The more on there is on the market, the less it's worth.

People are trying to get pandas to fuck in the zoo so their species doesn't die out. No one does the same for ants, cockroaches or grasshoppers. They're "pests." In fact we try to kill those. Well guess what, humans aren't the equivalent to pandas. We're the fucking locusts of this world, and it's already haunting us. We have to accept that nature, earth, cannot support this many people breeding at an accelerating rate. Ultimately at this point, with 7 billion people, any single person is too much, and pumping out more of our larva is just detrimental to the well-being of the rest.

Same goes for people who have children. Don't think I forgot about you. It doesn't matter how much you recycle, how much of a vegan you are, or how well you raise your little supposed prodigies. In the end, you're just part of the problem. So next time you feel selfish enough to want kids, be a little moral and do the world a favor by just adopting a kid.

Views: 1190

Comment by James Johnson on April 17, 2013 at 8:37pm

The uber wealthy powermongers put it out there that the world is overcrowded with people, and of course, many are going to believe such propaganda and hyperbole. It's not true! What is true is that the 1% is plundering the wealth and resources of the world! And depriving everyone of a decent life while actually orchestrating world genocide!

Comment by Michael on April 17, 2013 at 9:28pm

Are you under the impression that starving people do not procreate?

I assure you that they do. There is no reason for them to suffer in order to control the population. There is also nothing immoral about fighting world hunger. Education and empowering woman can control the population much more effectively than ignoring the problem of hunger. Advocating starvation is remarkably immoral.

Comment by Ed on April 17, 2013 at 9:59pm

I suppose it is all a matter of perspective. Those chit chatting on this forum probably have it fairly cozy with a frig full of food. The individual on the other side of the issue sees it as a matter of basic survival. To turn one's back on the starving masses requires a fairly coarse conscious. This planet can easily support the seven or eight billion humans currently occupying it's space. The key is unified global management of our resources, which presently does not exist. Capitalism will ensure that resources continue to be squandered with indifference to planetary impact.

Those humans who are already here deserve a tad more consideration than the lowly sea turtle. I hope "Soylent Green" does not become reality for future generations. Eliminating religion and unregulated capitalism will get us in the right direction. 

Comment by _Robert_ on April 17, 2013 at 10:30pm

@Belle - take a look at any population chart- all the wars, diseases, and famines have little effect. The failures have been localized. The earth's resources are still supporting us for now. Now imagine 7 straight years of crop failures and a billion casualties- that would be a real adjustment.

Comment by Physeter on April 17, 2013 at 11:45pm

Birth rates go down dramatically when people become well-off and able to live comfortably. It's very poor places like Africa where people still have lots of kids. And sure, there are religious exceptions, but I have to think those will slowly decrease?

As I understand it, we have enough food and resources right now to feed everybody, but most of the stuff belongs to rich Americans and Europeans. The world is so incredibly unbalanced it's not even funny. And it's not as if things just popped into being this way, or that "god" planned it out that some should be more wealthy. A few hundred years of colonial expansion, and the Europeans made sure that the world would be a paradise for them but squalid for most others.

When I was in Africa, just about everybody was a cashew farmer, but nobody really ate cashews. Not hardly at all. The cashews all went across the boarder to be processed, or to India, or to Europe, and were then sold around the world. All the Africans survive primarily on rice, which they buy from India and Europe. The world around them has been structured so that they are the very bottom rung of a giant ladder dedicated to the comfort of the very few.

I can understand the viewpoint that we maybe should let people starve, though I can't agree with it. (Though my views are always changing.) And yes, population growth can't just go on unchecked like this. But I'm not able to get so upset about too many people; I get upset at how grossly unfair the world is for some people. Sure don't know what to do about it though.

Comment by kOrsan on April 18, 2013 at 1:29am


"But letting kids starve is mean!" "It's unfair! or "You don't know how starving feels!" are not valid arguments, they're your emotions getting in the way. What if overnight we somehow fixed world hunger? Would the world be a better place or would be we completely fucked?

You cannot feed everybody. That is the point. The only reason there are starving children to begin with is overpopulation. As Heather said

I'm into 'ending hunger' by controlling our fucking population. If we can't even do that, then hunger will control our population for us.

Feeding the starving isn't a way to end world hunger or suffering, it's just scratching the wound. To really minimize suffering we would have to bring down Earth's population, but that's not going to happen with the lesser members of the species (especially the religious/ignorant) breeding like crazed animals.

I agree "letting people starve" sounds bad but ultimately so does letting little turtles getting killed before they can make it to the ocean. If the cameramen helped them, the ecosystem could get all fucked up, and that's what's already happening with humanity. Our food resources are all fucked up, and we wreak havoc on the environment, and on both our and other species. We're not different than animals, we are animals, and we're the most dangerous kind. If there was a more intelligent species than ours on Earth they would no doubt classify us as a pest, and hand out hunting permits to control the pest problem.

Comment by kOrsan on April 18, 2013 at 1:45am

For the sake of the universe I hope we don't get off of this planet. No need to spread even further. And once we have tat technology people would go even crazier with their breeding and spreading with colonization wars following. Muslims and Jews will competition-fuck to populate planets with their own.

Comment by _Robert_ on April 18, 2013 at 3:11am

I believe in separation of church and planet

LOL, me too

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on April 18, 2013 at 3:39am

By the time we get to migrate "off planet" religions will have died away. Then all you need is the right man in charge to make sure it stays that way.

Comment by kOrsan on April 18, 2013 at 3:47am

It amuses me when people think our future is going to be like the one in Star Trek where a bunch of nice guys in a spaceship explore the galaxy in peace. How much more likely is it that we're going to become the fucking Borg, Predators, Xenomorphs or Necromongers of the galaxy? A lot. Ours is a warlike species and I doubt religion is going to die out soon, unless we go with my genius plan and screen the religious babies out, then tie them by their feet to a bunch of balloons and let them float at carnivals so people can buy tickets to shoot them and pop the balloons. If you can shoot down 3 relitard babies you win a teddy bear.



You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service