That population graph has been grossly misconstrued. I'm quite certain in the 1850s no one had the means to determine the entire world's population.

It was called "opium", Leto.

Actually, now that you mentioned it, about five years back the Australian government put in motion several measures towards increasing the birth rate. The only ones I remember were a rather creepy speech by the Treasurer and a $3000 baby bonus. Which resulted in quite a few teen pregnancies by girls who wanted the money to buy a pair of sunnies or something.

Perhaps we should have a mass culling of teenagers as opposed to children. I can't think of alot of people that would object to that.

Of course, then we'll just have a large age gap to fill with even less well educated Children.

But you completely missed the part about using super computers to electronically educate, creating an entire generation of super-geniuses. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that...

I think the teenagers might. And the paedophiles.

Letting nature do its job would be most effective in my mind. Someone lost both his arms because of he thought it would be cool to try juggling chainsaws in his backyard? Let him bleed to death, we don't need him. Next.

To many stupid people are being saved and more important, to many stupid people still breed.

So you're saying we shouldn't save people even though we could, and let them bleed to death in their backyard? Also, how do you know they are stupid and not just into weird shit?

Edit: Delete this. I changed my mind.

Was that a toast?

It's almost related.

I actually agree with Havoc to some degree. Whether or not you're into "weird shit", you should know enough to take proper precautions before attemping said shit. This is why I don't feel an iota of remorse when I hear a group of teenagers ended up mortally wounded after attempting a stunt they saw on Jackass - I mean the show is called Jackass, for christ's sake.

This sort of branches off into the whole "Media vs. Common Sense" category though. My point is, nature knows best, and if someone dies because of something that was their own stupid fault - it's really for the best. Alot of people will disagree and say it's unfair to apply "survival of the fittest" to a race so "advanced" as homo sapiens. But considering the core topic here is overpopulation; I think natural selection is one of the best means of shaving down the numbers.

I don't think that just because people do some stunts, they should die for it if they get hurt. Whatever happened to circuses and stuff? You like those. But it's dangerous too. Would it be right/fair to let a clown die in the middle of the stage because they fell down from a high platform?

Also, teens are impressionable. Let them survive one stuntfail, and let them learn.

And even though natural selection seems like a logic and good idea.. You wouldn't want that to happen to the people you care for, your mom, me, your cousin, your friends. Well everyone has cousins, friends and families, meaning there will always be someone out there to care for someone and ensure their health/happiness.

A circus is not the same. They don't cross the tightrope with ease their first time, it takes years of professionalism and practice. I'm talking about the people dumb enough to try and ride a unicycle while juggling fire on their first day.

As for your comment on personal affection, of course no one would want their family or friends to die. This stems from our emotional ties with them and our inability to cope with loss or drastic change. In the grand scheme of things, everything happens for a reason. Nature isn't wrong, and in the few instances it is, it's only because we tampered with the natural order in the first place. Death has such a negative connotation, which is a mixed blessing in my opinion. In fact, many advancements in medical technology stem from the selfish notion that all people should live full lives, regardless of their intelligence or physical condition. Saving the life of a child after a near-fatal accident is one thing, but keeping a vegetable or a octogenarian alive with machines and liquefied super-food is another.

It's fair because life is all we've got. Once you snuff out the only existance the person will ever know they'll have no chance to change and do better. Sometimes these kinds of experience are for the better even if they were downright stupid. I'd know from personal experience. Common sense is relative. Anyone is viable to be under the gun of "their actions were just stupid so let them perish." Instead of eliminating all the bad things we should work to make them better.

Well, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, or smarter as the case would be (hopefully).

People should not be judged based on their value to society. Officially, at least.

They should, actually. Someone who has been working their ass off their entire life for a minimum wage gets much more respect from me than some redneck trailer trash who collects welfare every month which he uses to buy beer.

In nature it's a matter of survival of the fittest. A lion who is lazy and doesn't want to hunt for food dies, simple as that. Of course there is no survival of the fittest anymore because these days the lazy lions among us get their food tossed at them and if you don't want to eat it you will be forced to eat it. And of course you can morally object the survival of the fittest argument, to each his own.

I believe that when survival of the fittest was thrown out the window because we as a species are a society, we as a society have the obligation to advance our species and society. Everyone is born with a purpose in this world, you take part in the great chain of industry and form one of the many links in the chain that makes our society go forward, how ever slowly it may be. Anyone not participating in this process but still collecting the benefits of it (AKA receiving welfare) should be cut off from everything our society has achieved. We did not get to where we are by sitting on our asses but for some reason we're now rewarding it. Doesn't make sense to me. You're either a part of the process or you can go find your own food, clean your own water and build your own house.

Too bad that's not even fucking legal anymore. You HAVE to be part of society, or else, everything you do is illegal.

This thread is starting to sound like the backstory to 7th Leigon.

No one deserves death, and humans aren't one-dimensional animals that lack the potential to change. I'm fed up with the bullshit of society myself, but there's a reason why things like welfare were implemented. It's true that society works like a machine, and if any part isn't stable, it becomes a drag on society. It's true that welfare is abused, but as long as there's even a minority of people that deserve it and will use it to help themselves and society, it should exist. There are simply too many details and grey areas to make things so black and white. It's the lesser of two evils so to speak, but with the way we have things now, there's hope for improvement. So, I wouldn't call it an evil at all.

I'm not saying welfare is a bad thing. I'm saying the people who abuse it should be hung and quartered because they are a useless addition to our society which we can't remove them from any other way, as T-nex pointed out.

Just keep in mind that usefullness is subjective. What about blind people or disabled veterens? Should we kill them too? You're about as close as you can get to modern barbarism if you go down the path of eliminating those deemed unnecessary by society.

Seen from an evolutionary point of view, that would be just the way to go about it. But the thing is, we killed evolution long time ago, when we had the ability to cure diseases and handicaps.

I think his ponit isn't about purely "unnecessary" individuals, but people who are able bodied and fully capable of donig something constructive to society but CHOOSE not to because collecting welfare they don't need/strictly deserve is the lazier, easier way.

Like, if somebody's out of a job, sure they deserve welfare. But ONLY if they actively attempt to get a job. If they sit around making no effort to find a job cause its easier to collect cheques, then no, they don't deserve it. The Depression-era work plans had 1 aspect of it right- if there's a task to be doing, offer the unemployed a payment to do it. If they really wnat a job they'd accept it. I oppose jobs for the sake of a job, but this isn't strictly the same- this is people getting a (probably nominal) payment for a required and probably 1-off task, while looking for a full time job.


Sekto also made a very good point on how we keep vegetated/comatose people alive, regardless of anything. They could be in utter agony and we'd keep them going. They certainly have no true quality of life anymore. Yet on the opposite hand we're willing to put down animals if they suffer, even if it's much more mild suffering in comparison. I experienced this dilemma yesterday, and it is indeed a bizarre hypocrisy and a reflection on how we appear to treat human life as sacred as if the mere presence of life, even a life of horrific pain and waiting for death, is better than giving them the end.

ITT: Havoc slowly tries to convince everyone to kill off more and more Humans, allowing the Tigers to take over as the dominate species of Earth.

imma lol when havoc's legs get blown off in a terrorist attack

ill be all

hahahaha

how does it feel being useless to society

then ill feel bad

This reminds me of that Simpsons sketch;

"Breeding will be permitted once every seven years,
For some, this will mean much less breeding...
For others, much much more!"

For once, I sort of agree with you. You see some teens and some people in their early 20s that get kids just so they can get the benefit payout for having it, and they don't lift a single finger to help repay it to society. It's disgraceful. Cases for welfare have to be looked into for legitimate reasons that were beyond the applicant's control like getting their legs blown off or something.