The Problem with Socialists, Populists, and Their Derivatives
Chou | 2 07 2007If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
Liberals defend many causes. They want us to back the people of various countries by giving them aid. They also advocate wealth distribution and other socialist programs. Thirdly, they want to protect the environment.
Unfortunately, here is our problem. These all conflict with each other.
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.
To make up for this, we decide to give away our “abundance” of resources to other nations. Unfortunately, these nations percieve us Western, developed nations to be a utopia of overabundance. Thus, they consume aid faster than we can provide it in such useless things as armies, genocide, weapons, beauracracy, and unnecessary goverment programs.
Well, guess what left-wingers. We’re consuming our environment’s resources faster than it can regenerate. Thus, the environment will keep shrinking and producing less, while we consume more. At the same time, if we try to share everything, we’ll just use it up faster. Some people will consume their share immediately, while others will decide to conserve their resources. Then the have-nots will demand a share from the haves, and we will keep repeating this until eventually nobody has any resources and we leave a barren, lifeless planet behind us.
There are three ways to solve this problem.
The first way, and the one I think is most effective, useful, and least infringing on my rights, is to stop sending aid to other countries, and to stop trying to share the wealth and divide everything up. Let natural selection take its course, I say, and prevent the unproductive and the unfit from reproducing. Otherwise, we favor the people whose genes are not the innovative, the intelligent, the athletic, but rather those whom reproduce the quickest. In our society, that would be people whom I personally would not trust running our government. Not only will we be able to filter out a whole bunch of people that leech off of the productive ones, but we would also be able to help conserve our resources and let them regenerate. Think about it, the people whom keep bringing back smallpox, polio, and drug resistant tuberculosis are infringing on my right to be healthy. The reason they have these is because they were too stupid to not follow the instructions of their doctors: thus, they shouldn’t be able to remain able to spread disease to me. We should let them die off quicker, so we don’t get infected.
As for those people in other countries, they can fight amongst themselves, reducing populations for us without the expenditure of my hard-earned tax-paid resources. It will also help to filter out a new generation of intelligent, hard-working peoples, instead of a generation of druggies, gangsters, warmongers, prostitutes, religious hypocrites, idiots, and disease-spreaders.
A second way to reduce populations, of course, is mass genocide. I’m not even going to discuss this one because it is too immoral for even my tastes. It would do wonders for the environment, though-all that biomass will help propogate species.
As a side note, I, unlike other libertarian-capitalist-objectivist-neocon peoples on this blog, support the environment, because without it, I wouldn’t be able to have foods, cures to diseases, oxygen, and other necessities of life. Plus, we need it to help suppress unwanted species from growing, like poison ivy, weeds, and Homo Sapiens.
The third way to control the population is to establish space colonies. Unfortunately, all the resources that may go to that are instead going to random countries to build more weapons to kill our people. Seriously, if people want money, they’re going to have to earn it by working, not by pulling strings.
And as a side note, for those whom complain at how rich children control all of the wealth anyways, one will figure that they will squander all of their money away anyways, and help to remove their stain from our gene pool.
And that’s my Darwinistic look of our world today.
Editor’s Note: Profanity was removed from this post and it was edited for further grammatical consistency at 10:45PM on 7/4/2007.
Last 5 posts by Chou
- Fishy Business in Florida - January 29th, 2008
- Eftychis's Last Stand: Michigan and What it Means - January 17th, 2008
- A Government Program Idea That Even I Support - September 15th, 2007
- John Edwards' Universal Healthcare Plan - August 5th, 2007
- America: Land of the Double Standard - June 5th, 2007
Popularity: 38% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The The Problem with Socialists, Populists, and Their Derivatives by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
It appears as though your ethical and moral laws seem
Paul Hillsdon | 2 07 2007It appears as though your ethical and moral laws seem to be a little off track here. You literally suggest mass genocide to get rid of those you personally believe useless. That is just utterly disgusting, as another human being, to think that you have the right to let, or even force, another person to die. Just because some boy grew up in Africa, does not mean that he doesn’t have the same potential as a girl from America. Your overall thesis is nothing less than a second Holocaust.
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?
All below applies to Ryan's Darfur post as well. ------------------------------------- "Well, guess
Simmons | 2 07 2007All below applies to Ryan’s Darfur post as well.
————————————-
“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.
IRT Paul I said there are three possible solutions, both moral
Chou | 2 07 2007IRT Paul
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.
“Our world population stands at about 6.7 billion people and
Simmons | 3 07 2007“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.”
Where did you get that statistic?
"Humankind is in a decline. We haven’t had any significant
Simmons | 3 07 2007“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.”
That’s the luxury of living in the 21st century.
"Where did you get that statistic?" Various population graphers. It
Chou | 3 07 2007“Where did you get that statistic?”
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.
Die out from what? Bird flu? The biggest threat we, the
Simmons | 5 07 2007Die out from what? 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.
Exactly. So my point is to leave them alone,
Chou | 5 07 2007Exactly. So my point is to leave them alone, and let them fight amongst whatever resources they can claim. If they want to fight amongst themselves, let them do that. If they want to be agreeable, facilitate their peace. But don’t force me to help them, especially if it fails to help significantly, pays for a beauracracy, or if they’re just going to buy weapons.
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.