Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Imagination Exercises' started by TheLastMohican, Aug 3, 2009.
Condoms would be better than just homosexuality: we could use some help with STDs as well.
No- the STDs should advance. Think about it: it also encourages population control. Aids? Good way to prevent children from being produced and also producing more children.
I disagree: most STDs are not deadly. Furthermore, if they become widespread enough, people will start to care very little about them, and not bother with as much protection, resulting in more accidental pregnancies. Besides, do you want population control for the sake of only the earth, or also for the sake of humanity? Giving everyone STDs would kind of ruin it for those who remained after the population reduction. What's the point if those left will be miserable anyway?
You should see Shai's short Youtube on that subject(population control)....heh
Yeah but if ABORTION was encouraged, these children wouldn't be borned regardless! Most STDs are not deadly, but if people continued to have sex and no caring about them the odds would go up and more people would be infected, more would die, etc. Population control would greatly reduce the numbers of humanity. I never really thinked ahead of what will happen when all of them or most of them are dead, I assumed I'd be dead too so it wouldn't matter.
I'm pretty sure that's the video of his that I left a spammy derogatory comment on.
As many country's religiosity has gone down, so has their birth rates. I think the natural reproductive rates of people are actually significantly lower than the artificially elevated rates that have resulted from religious influence. Probably to the point that eliminating such religions would probably reduce bring population growth completely under control.
Somewhat true, but condoms are a lot cheaper. I doubt a government (let alone a church) could afford as many abortions as there would be unwanted pregnancies. In short, your plan = epic fail. The effects do matter when you're trying to advocate it. Presumably you think population control would be good because we are suffering (or will soon suffer) from overpopulation. But if that method of control (mass STD infection) significantly lowers the quality of life of most of the population in order to kill off a relatively small percentage, what have we accomplished?
That's a better approach: forget the new artificial pressures, just get rid of the old ones.
I guess the solution is: 1. Ban reproduction 2. Kill anyone who reproduces 3. Kill people needlessly. Does this plan fail at population control?
Actually, in the first 8 weeks there are several herbal concoctions that will safely terminate a pregnancy. Lots of these herbs could be easily grown in backyard gardens, windowsills, etc. So not necessarily an epic fail.... Yet at least.
Probably, simply by its infeasibility. An institution that kills so indiscriminately attempts to suppress one of the most basic human drives cannot last long unless it first establishes a super-Orwellian level of control. Political and even religious movements would find it very difficult to organize sufficiently to overthrow such a government, but rebellion against such universally repulsive measures would be arising from a multitude of individuals, so that many independent revolts would quickly merge into a massive one involving the majority of the population all at once. There comes a point at which neighbors will fear each other more than the government, and will therefore cease to report one another. Of course there are alternative methods, but advertising those would not mesh well with the rest of the government plan. It would encourage independence from government-approved doctors, who would be needed to keep on the pressure against reproduction in the first place. It might work, however, to enforce ignorance of those herbs and try to eradicate all natural occurrences outside of secret greenhouses, which would provide the medical industry with those ingredients for convenient abortion pills, the origins and workings of which would remain mysterious to the public. That would provide a handy monopoly and dependence. There would likely be backlashes to contend with, though, including but not limited to those by herbal researchers in the early days of the program, and later those of pregnant women who refuse to take the medications and opt to give birth due to the secretive nature of the abortion treatments.
I'd have to say a government takeover of healthcare will certainly get the job done.
Economic evidence indicates that countries that have higher economic status tend to have their birthrate more in control. In third world countries and other places that do not have the access to regular resources should disease or famine strike, families tend to be larger because the chance that a child will survive, and thus be able to provide support for the community/family, is significantly lower than it might be in more developed nations. It seems to me that trying to bring forth economic growth would be a lot easier than say.. destroying religion?
There will be wars, pestilence, famine, disease, natural disasters accidents, and the likes. Abortion is a sad means of contraception and an uneducated way of birth control, though I can understand its use in bizarre situations like rape, incest, or risk of life. Please see the rest of this post in the topic of meme in religion for clarity.
Adoption. Education. That'll be a start.
hmm interesting conversation! I would like to believe abortion is a 'no go' how about a vasectomys as a crime punishment Might help population control of criminals and having messed up off spring Its not a death sentence, its not abortion and also will help population management. A bit extreme I know what does anyone else think?
vasectomys AND abortion
How about if the UN agrees to nuke the 10 countries with the highest reproduction rates each decade? We can start next summer.