And yes, we could potentially die out from bird flu, if say certain peoples believe that for instance “America is trying to poison our children, don’t take the vaccine” and happen to tell everybody else, whom believes them, well that’s infringing on my right to be healthy. And while I certainly don’t have the right to deprive those idiots of life, I do have the right to prevent them from causing that to me, which would mean not helping their cause at all.

Clever use of analogies. Dodo bird, bird flu.

The biggest threat we, the human race, is currently facing is ourselves. We are using up resources, as you have said, altering the environment, and being just plain horrible to each other.

Various population graphers. It was on a BBC or National Geographic series, I forget specifically which one.

“That’s the luxury of living in the 21st century.”

Let’s look at Africa, for instance. The intelligensia and the wealthy are moving to Western countries. The people in charge are either the strongest physically or those whom outnumber the rest. Namely, the ethnic groups that are largest have the most power-see Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. And its a luxury that we can no longer afford to waste away. We need to change genetically as a species, or we all die out like the dodo birds.

That’s the luxury of living in the 21st century.

Where did you get that statistic?

I said there are three possible solutions, both moral and immoral. I said that mass genocide is completely uncalled for, because it is immoral, I was just mentioning that it was a possible (abet completely unnecessary) solution. That environmental comment was sarcasm, fyi.

As for the “right to let someone die,” I of course don’t have that right. They have the right to live. But I have the right not to help them if I don’t want to. Of course, I would probably help, but on a need-basis. Namely, I would use my rights to do something about it.

Everybody should perform to the best of their ability, i.e. natural selection. If some people can’t perform well as others, they shouldn’t be able to slowly overwhelm the others through sheer numbers and cause genetic faults in our society. Do animals help each other out? No, they generally don’t, unless they’re in a family/pack group. They don’t generally go and help out somebody unless its in their best interest.

And if I am hypothetically dying from cancer (which probably won’t happen, given the fact that science is starting to reaccelerate and new cures are being discovered)-well, if I had let myself degenerate that far as not to have tested, taken drugs, etc. I should die so I don’t pass my lazy, stupid, carcingoenic genes onto the next generation.

IRT Simmons

Exactly. Humankind is in a decline. We haven’t had any significant evolutionary change, and we are starting to genetically favor not the smartest, the strongest, the innovators, etc. but rather those that can reproduce the fastest. Those that can reproduce the fastest are generally not as educated as those whom are.

In addition, we are using up Earth’s resources faster than they can be regenerated. If you had read the article’s gist, it would have said how

“Our world population stands at about 6.7 billion people and counting. The carrying capacity (for those of you without a high school education, that means the sustainable population size of a group in an area) of Earth for humans ranges between 500 million and 3 billion. That means that about 3.7 billion people extra are alive.”

Basically, even if we do decide to make everybody equal amounts of food, water, resources, etc. we’re still going to use them all up. Developed nations aren’t growing, but developing nations still have large population growth rates. Heck, Rwanda, the same country with the mass genocide, is expected to have over 40 MILLION people by 2020, vs. 6 million today. If they want resources, they should use it properly, instead of killing each other and buying weapons and having slave women, etc. etc. etc. Africa would be much better off if they went into anarcho-communism in that sense. Trying to impose “democracy” just isn’t working now, is it.

And actually, science is accelerating to the point where they actually have treatments that can slow your aging. Stem-cells can restore our organs. So yes, actually, it is possible for humans to live forever. Then, what is going to control the population from growing, while we use up more and more resources? Nothing, of course. Then, when we run out of food, either we all die of starvation, or we all die in nuclear war over the little remaining resources on the cold barren rock Earth will become eventually.

That’s why I suggest we don’t do anything. No money, no aid, no nothing. People can choose to send their aid, but the government has no right to take taxes from us to give aid to random people whom are only going to spread their non-progressive traits further.

Show me a society where people can share their wealth and still have it, and I’ll show you a Republican whom isn’t a complete born-again idiot.

“Well, guess what left-wingers…”
Did you post this under “Liberal Content” as a joke?

We’re living in the 21st Century. We’re past the Dark Ages. Sure, your life may not be perfect, but it’s better than most of starving and dieing Africans (or wherever). We can take some sacrifices to better humankind.

What’s the purpose of life: to better your life, or better your species? Your not going to live forever.

Frankly, if you do not want to be sharing your wealth with others, why don’t you just go buy an island and live there on your own. Societies exist primarily because of interaction with one another. One of the most simple ways to befriend others and get along is to “share the wealth”.

Besides, when you are the one dying from cancer, who will want to help you, after you turned your back on so many others?