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: 950

Comment by Strega on April 18, 2013 at 11:13am

Hi Korsan,

Here is a fascinating TED talk entitled Religions and Babies, that deals in a very watchable way, with the subject matter of your thread.  It's 13.20 in length (for those who have limited downloads) and it tackles this very subject, reaching some unexpected conclusions.

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 11:17am

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.

BUT, when people become more comfortable and well-off, resource usage goes up. So, you see, it's a classic balloon problem. A world war or pandemic is a far better solution.

Just be glad everyone isn't as comfortable and well-off as North Americans and Europeans, especially with China and India, with their vast populations, entering into the world of middle-class consumers.

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 11:19am

@Angela Evangelia  One attitude toward nature is that it defines the possible. In other words, anything that's unnatural is ipso facto impossible. So, if we fuck up the planet and make ourselves extinct, that's as natural as anything else that has happened or can happen.

Comment by Gallup's Mirror on April 18, 2013 at 11:22am

Now, the idea of moving off-world is nonsense.

Maybe right now. But in another 100 years or 500 years? I wouldn't be so sure.

The means already exist to solve the problems of getting there and the radiation (as you said: living underground). Some of the unmet challenges involve dealing with the effects of low gravity over the long term, and making supremely reliable, self-sustained ecosystems that produce oxygen, water, and food, and recirculate waste and CO2. 

Then you have do it all on a scale that makes life worth living. You don't want people huddled in miserable little bands, living in hut-like pressurized caves. You want them living in large city-like communities with public and private space for all.

Tough challenges, yes. But impossible? I don't think so, if the will (and funding) to make it happen is there.

Anyway, I am living proof than a human being can spend vast periods of time indoors, out of the sunlight, without any harmful effects whatsoever. (Just ask the Queen of the Potato People. She lives in my cupboard. She'll tell you.)

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 11:28am

@Belle Rose I wonder who here on this post has ever truly starved? (I may be wrong) and I don't mean going a day or two (or 10) without food. If any of you have starved for any length of time and you've still found starvation to be non-essential in the realm of "morality" in terms of problems we should strive to solve then I make an exception for you. Otherwise I think it to be something we do not truly understand. Witnessing starvation and starving yourself are very different things. If you were the one starving you may not feel so strongly that it is an immoral issue to wish it aleviated.

Given that, generally speaking, and absent a brutal dictatorship (e.g., China), people don't voluntarily stop having children—especially in poor countries where children are needed to help in the family's labor—if not starvation, then what will function to reduce the population other than war, pandemic, famine, or drought?

Unfortunately, the population needs to be reduced quickly and only disasters seem to fill the bill.

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 11:34am

@Ed  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.

Feeding all the people on the planet more fairly the way you seem to feel desirable would actually be a complete and total disaster, for we need fewer people, not more. If we fed people currently dying of starvation, the population explosion would increase and all of the problems associated with that explosion would increase along with it. 

So, kindly explain what good would come of worldwide soup kitchens. I can see none. Maybe we should be like Christians and trust that God will provide. (hahahaha)

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 11:39am

Maybe right now. But in another 100 years or 500 years? I wouldn't be so sure.

The means already exist to solve the problems of getting there and the radiation (as you said: living underground). Some of the unmet challenges involve dealing with the effects of low gravity over the long term, and making supremely reliable, self-sustained ecosystems that produce oxygen, water, and food, and recirculate waste and CO2. 

Then you have do it all on a scale that makes life worth living.

How many feel life is worth living if you can't live it under a blue sky, out in the open, wind in your hair, water lapping on a shore populated with with real fish and whales and with the ability to travel and see faraway lands? Not me.

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 11:59am

@kOrsan  Belle better a few people starve than multiples of it in the future. That's where we're heading now. Places like famine stricken parts of Africa are really a glimpse into the future of all around the Earth.

Imagine you're on a lifeboat when a ship is sinking. You reach a point where you can't take any more on board without threatening the lives of those on the boat. We here in America, Western Europe, and other prosperous countries are in the lifeboat.

Comment by kris feenstra on April 18, 2013 at 2:06pm

Ever stop to think about why humans aren't supposed to interfere with nature?

There is no such 'supposed to'. This statement is also either incoherent or incongruous with the way you live.

Why do you think it is that cameramen filming little turtles crawling into the ocean never stop help them?

Because documentarians generally aren't supposed to interfere with their subject matter regardless of what it is, (though there is always ongoing debate about this). The documentary is likely about sea turtles and not documentarians fondling sea turtles. When documentaries are made about marine biologists interfering with nature, the documentarians don't interfere with the marine biologists for the most part either.

Because that's how nature preserves its balance.

Nature doesn't preserve balance as some sort of imperative. With or without human activity, balance changes all the time to varying degrees.

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?

What planet are you living on? We interfere with animals all the fucking time. We can't stop ourselves. Farming, habitat destruction, ecological management and preservation, breeding and rereleasing animals into the wild, keeping pets, veterinary research and practice, and wildlife rescue are all means of interfering with animals. 

Why do we interfere with other humans? Because we, ourselves, are other humans. Often we want things from other humans such as food products, minerals, fuels, textiles, manufacturing, and even political advantage. When it comes to famine, not all famines are going to be permanent or increasing, and they don't all stem from simplistic causes such as high local population. Each has to be addressed on its own merits, and some of that is going to come back to our behaviour and vested interests in our respective nations.

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 4:15pm

@Angela Evangelia  Animal populations drive themselves extinct on occasion. Since it can happen, it's natural,

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 3 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service