Moderator:Forum Administrators
ILuvEire wrote:Also, Central Texas is in an extreme drought right now, and so I've also reading about drought and invariably, Australia came up. I found out that, for Australia to maintain its current quality of life, it would need to reduce it's 20.8 million population to just 10 million people.
ILuvEire wrote:I found out that, for Australia to maintain its current quality of life, it would need to reduce it's 20.8 million population to just 10 million people.
Draven wrote:ILuvEire wrote:I found out that, for Australia to maintain its current quality of life, it would need to reduce it's 20.8 million population to just 10 million people.
Easy. Ban immigration and make life for new Australians so hard, they have to leave the country. Leave that to the Liberals.
12345 wrote:Maybe I'm harsh but..
I think we shouldn't try to save everyone. There's a reason why some people are in fact too weak to live (myself included). Back in the days people like me would die, just like people who get other illnesses. It was kind of regulation by Earth I think.
Overpopulation is also a reason why I'm not really pro donor-codicil. It makes overpopulation only worse, and those who shouldn't have survived it (according to nature) will survive. Same goes for all antibiotics, immunization, anti-HIV drugs etc.
For some reason I believe Earth tries to stop the overpopulation, but the human race finds solutions to 'master' Earth.
Yeah you may find me weird, but that's how I see it. I'm not wanting people to die, but I think it would be more appropriate to follow nature.. Tho I'm not sure after I read what I wrote down..
Vogelvrij wrote:But that's just immoral, don't you think? When we're able to help people, we should help them. It's far more important to make sure we will consume less and invent new ways to get a healthier earth.
Vogelvrij wrote:12345 wrote:Maybe I'm harsh but..
I think we shouldn't try to save everyone. There's a reason why some people are in fact too weak to live (myself included). Back in the days people like me would die, just like people who get other illnesses. It was kind of regulation by Earth I think.
Overpopulation is also a reason why I'm not really pro donor-codicil. It makes overpopulation only worse, and those who shouldn't have survived it (according to nature) will survive. Same goes for all antibiotics, immunization, anti-HIV drugs etc.
For some reason I believe Earth tries to stop the overpopulation, but the human race finds solutions to 'master' Earth.
Yeah you may find me weird, but that's how I see it. I'm not wanting people to die, but I think it would be more appropriate to follow nature.. Tho I'm not sure after I read what I wrote down..
But that's just immoral, don't you think? When we're able to help people, we should help them. It's far more important to make sure we will consume less and invent new ways to get a healthier earth.
Varislintu wrote:1. We should stop the damaging "religion against contraception" stuff from being preached in developing countries.
12345 wrote:It may be immoral to other people. But what we're doing now is immoral to Earth and everything that lives on Earth.
Yasha wrote:Vogelvrij wrote:But that's just immoral, don't you think? When we're able to help people, we should help them. It's far more important to make sure we will consume less and invent new ways to get a healthier earth.
If someone lives in isolation from the rest of the world so as to not deal with these problems, would you call that immoral as well?
12345 wrote:Varislintu wrote:1. We should stop the damaging "religion against contraception" stuff from being preached in developing countries.
Shortly: We should get rid of the pope and his preachings against condoms.
12345 wrote:But still I don't understand why the UK for example which is not following the catholic pope, still has such a high teenage pregnancy rate, while sex education should start to aim at people from 10 y.o. onwards. So the basis of enough knowledge about contraception is made early .
Sex education shouldn't start at 18, because consent is only allowed from that age or something. Start earlier!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy
12345 wrote:Varislintu wrote:1. We should stop the damaging "religion against contraception" stuff from being preached in developing countries.
Shortly: We should get rid of the pope and his preachings against condoms.
Vogelvrij wrote:Not really, but that's a completely different situation. I just meant what Draven mentioned, you shouldn't actively trying to get rid of people (by not giving them the available medicine). It's a different thing than trying to stop teenagers to get pregnant.
Polonus wrote:Easy, easy.... And what about freedom of speech and the so loudly proclaimed TOLERANCE towards somebody's views?
Polonus wrote:(I am so grateful to my dear mummy for not having applied contraception and for having given birth to me. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to write this comment here. Thanks, mummy. RIP)
Yasha wrote:Vogelvrij wrote:Not really, but that's a completely different situation. I just meant what Draven mentioned, you shouldn't actively trying to get rid of people (by not giving them the available medicine). It's a different thing than trying to stop teenagers to get pregnant.
I don't see not doing something as actively trying to get rid of people.
I actually disagree with 12345 about the development of medicine, but I don't think that his/her views are immoral.
Varislintu wrote:Polonus wrote:Easy, easy.... And what about freedom of speech and the so loudly proclaimed TOLERANCE towards somebody's views?
Tolerance as in the way Christians go around the world being tolerant of other people not being Christian ? Btw, in no way do I wan't the pope or catholicism to be banned, but a responsible secular state does not let their population rely solely on magical beliefs in real world, welfare-affecting matters.
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests