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: 1261

Comment by Dr.Grixis on April 17, 2013 at 3:55pm
Nature does not create morality, humans do, albeit it based on the rules of nature, if only for the sake of survival.
If we do intend to survive we should indeed see where overpopulation leads us and have the courage to change course.

That being said, as a breeder myself i am not part of the solution.... maybe i should balance that out by stealing food from starving people.

Ending suffering seems like a noble goal, but how much suffering are we creating and sustaining due to that desire?

Interesting post!
Comment by kOrsan on April 17, 2013 at 4:11pm

It's human arrogance if you ask me. We have a bias for our species. As in the example I gave, when it's about animals, we usually either try not to interfere with nature at all, or we even aid in killing what we call "pests." But because our brains tell us that our own kind is of most importance we cannot see that objectively having more and more humans around is detrimental to us in the long term.

As it is now, when it comes to human population our motto seems to be quantity over quality. We have too many people around, and the quality of all of our lives is affected. This is mostly thanks to religion and government, who in their contempt for all that is decent, try to force-breed people like dogs so they have more potential recruits/soldiers/followers. Life is sacred, abortion is murder, make more children, pump out more units, lay more larva, just spread! Fags are immoral because they can't have kids. Spread! The earth is ours. Limited resources? Fuck that! God made this place for us and Jesus will return long before we run out, don't worry, just breed!

It wouldn't be immoral to save lives if they then stopped spawning even more people, but as with any other animal, it's in our nature to breed mindlessly. And so we only create more people, hence more problems. Earth is limited, and at this rate we're going to reach this limit long before any sci-fi space colonization fantasies are a reality. Then what happens?

Comment by kOrsan on April 17, 2013 at 4:16pm

If it wasn't a sad reality that humans breed to much and too fast, then I'd be all for saving every life. Except the religiously inclined. It would be great if we developed some sort of genetic screening method to determine those babies with a predisposition for weak-mindedness and superstition, just as we can already determine many disabilities in the uterus, and throw them off of a cliff :)

Comment by Simon Paynton on April 17, 2013 at 4:35pm

But Belle - what if we destroy the planet with overpopulation?  Then none of us will survive.  The answer has to be some kind of humane balance of interests.  Not increased hunger, but increased birth control and clean energy and reduced consumption.  I think that one problem is that when there is a common resource - the Earth - there is no overall regulation over who snouts most from the trough.  So, if X person takes too much, then I might as well snout up as much as I like too.  We need to find effective incentives for everyone to behave for the true common good. 

Comment by angela kozma on April 17, 2013 at 4:42pm

Sometimes life is sneaky. I wasn't supposed to be able to have kids yet I have three. Inspite of having a body that has issues. I could no more walk past a starving child than I could a starving animal. I come from a childhood of learning take no more than you need. Use what you take. yes we need to get to space sagan said that back in the 70's. we currently have not enough science support in the states anymore to even look at it due to government and their let's dump all the money into war. Not hey lets figure out a better spaceship design and fuel that isn't a fossil fuel. Then there is the time to travel from here even to mars. Once we got there how to we survive long enough to build shelter?  Gattaca good example of what happens when you screw with genetics. We wouldn't have had Steven Hawking if genetic testing determined a baby's place in society.

Comment by Simon Paynton on April 17, 2013 at 4:53pm

If we have to jet off into space, then we've definitely failed in my opinion. 

Comment by angela kozma on April 17, 2013 at 4:59pm

when we wanted into space we did all this amazing tech.

Comment by angela kozma on April 17, 2013 at 5:03pm

we also gained mylar, dialysis machines, freeze dried food, cat scanners.

Comment by Simon Paynton on April 17, 2013 at 5:09pm

Garrett Hardin talks about this issue in a seminal paper of 1968:  technical, but worth it. 

The Tragedy of the Commons

... Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short.

The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity"--and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

Comment by Simon Paynton on April 17, 2013 at 5:15pm

I agree, but having to abandon our own planet in search of a new one - that's a disaster. 


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

Join Think Atheist

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service