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: 908

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on April 18, 2013 at 3:59am

Some days I look at the religious nutjobs around and about me and I get the distinct impression that I have already evolved into something different. It’s becoming a case of “Captain it’s the engines here, Scotty can’t take much more”. If I could remember where I parked my spaceship I would have left ages ago !!

Comment by Belle Rose on April 18, 2013 at 6:55am

"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.

Of course it's emotional! I don't think that means just because seeing a starving child stirs up emotion that it's not a valid argument. Again, I think it's natural to want to help starving people. It's also natural to prefer our own species over others because well, that is also natural. I don't know of any social mammals that don't prefer their own species. Pack animals stay together if that's how you like to put it. I do see your points though, I just think that to suggest that we should do nothing to end world hunger is a bit extreme. I think there are other ways of preventing the population from growing other than turning a blind eye to the people already l living. 

Comment by kOrsan on April 18, 2013 at 7:44am

Comment by Ed on April 18, 2013 at 8:12am

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

That is a blanket statement that disregards factors such as climate change. In the case of Africa, where the vast majority of starvation takes place, drought has been a key issue. If land does not receive adequate rainfall or experiences severe wind erosion it cannot support 2 people let alone 2 million.

Comment by Ed on April 18, 2013 at 8:17am

kOrsan: 

"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 possess a perverted sense of humor. 

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 8:22am

Most of the solutions that don't involve war or pandemic will only work if there's a worldwide dictatorship. So...back to war and pandemic.

Why a dictatorship? Because anything effective without a big kill off would involve limits on family size and/or enforced (or highly incentivized) sterilizations on a massive and global scale.

Comment by kOrsan on April 18, 2013 at 9:05am

it cannot support 2 people let alone 2 million.

Yeah, but the 2 people could move to a fertile place that's not already infested with another 200 million people and live happily ever after, and any aid they would receive would be far more effective since the rations would be divided by 2, instead by 2 million. Btw, humans are stubborn already, we spread and populate areas despite environmental factors. We're such a brilliant species that we build villages and cities at the foot of volcanoes. And it'll only get worse the more of us there are on the planet. More people = less space for everybody = more problems. Most parts of this planet are inhabitable, and we're filling the habitable parts to the brink with each unit leaving the factory/uterus, and so what happens is that the more people we create the more of them are going to end up having to live in the inhabitable zones. Even if they're lucky to be born in a "modern society," which each new generation the quality and standards of their lives are going to deteriorate.

You possess a perverted sense of humor.

Or so it seems to you because your sense of humor is prude.

Comment by Unseen on April 18, 2013 at 10:02am

Stephen Hawking isn't that highly regarded among physicists. He's kind of an attention whore.  

Now, the idea of moving off-world is nonsense. The only really viable and even vaguely realistic option would be Mars. But that sort of life would be very degraded compared to the life we lead on Earth now. You wouldn't be able to go out and really enjoy wind in the face. You'd be living largely underground to get shelter from the radiation which is far more intense than on Earth because Mars has no protective magnetosphere the way earth does. The people would probably gradually go bonkers. 

We'd be stuck with Mars because beyond it the planets receive very little sunlight by comparison with Earth or Mars and are balls of gas without a solid surface, and of course they have no liquid water (though some of the moons do).

Further in toward the sun, Venus and Mercury are hot and hostile. The Russians sent probes to the surface of Venus, one of which lasted less than an hour and the next one just a few hours. It's that unfriendly a place for a robotic device. Imagine how a human would fare. 

One Russian scientist claims to have seen a "scorpion-like" critter on the surface of Venus, and given the extremophiles we've discovered living around deep-sea vents and far underground, we can't really totally discount the possibility. Still, we've also been fooled by the appearance of images on the surface of Mars that turned out to be nothing more than an object that looked like something familiar, but only from a certain angle. Appearances can deceive.

At any rate, WE are NOT extremophiles. We're very adaptable to conditions on Earth, but even here there can be conditions that are life threatening (Death Valley, Antarctica). Conditions elsewhere are far more extreme than any on the surface of Earth.

Mercury? Nobody's tried to land on the surface, probably because it's much more hostile than even Venus's surface. 

Comment by Simon George on April 18, 2013 at 10:42am

Why don't you practice what you preach and commit suicide.

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

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

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service