If the world is overpopulated

Scroll to see replies

I can only assume that by making such a post that you are either drunk, or you are pissed off because you couldn't get hold of your favourite cereal for breakfast this morning and you are looking to blame someone for that and so it's "let's pick on the migrants" day.

That is a really extreme way to react to not getting hold of your favourite cereal for breakfast.

What happens, if he misses lunch because he was held up in traffice, will he invade the Middle East?

Reply 21

Abstract_Prism

Original post by richpanda

I wish our world was more 'survival of the fittest' so only the genetic elite could reproduce, and humans would evolve to become incredibly clever and strong

How would you feel if you were not part of the 'genetic elite' and told you were inferior by birth, and left to die in a violent and brutish dog-eat-dog society? It would be awful.

Besides, the kinds of qualities that would result from natural selection wouldn't be intelligence; it would be aggression and physical strength. In natural selection, the Thug is genetically elite. Humanity becomes more intelligent through the sharing of knowledge and exploring together, not through becoming more intelligent by nature.

:h:

Reply 22

bethwalker85

I'd be much happier for the NHS to provide a free sterilising unit for people in England who pump out babies and don't use protection for more benefits. Not people who are trying to escape war and fear.

Reply 23

Abstract_Prism

Original post by BobBobson

To me, life doesn't have intrinsic value. I only place value on lives which will serve a benefit to me alive. Just like all other humans. It's just that I don't kid myself into believing that we are some kind of altruistic species. Each human sets different human beings' lives different value. Value isn't something intrinsic like the quantum number of a particle, it' subjective.

Sure, life doesn't have objective value, but then again nothing does. Value is by its very nature subjective; it is given by mankind.

Does this make it less valid? I don't think so. Our perceptions are all that we know, all that will make any sort of difference to us when there is no objective value. When there is nothing objective, subjectivity becomes more important.

So now we deal with life having subjective value. It's not just a matter of numbers. Every living person feels things, happiness, sadness, hopes and aspirations. They have people who they love and whom they are loved by. This is what we mean when we say life has value. It is the virtue of being human, and this is something precious. Pain is something that should be avoided because it is subjectively bad. Happiness is something that should be promoted because it is subjectively good. Being subjective doesn't make something invalid.

:h:

Reply 24

username2097061

Original post by Abstract_Prism

How would you feel if you were not part of the 'genetic elite' and told you were inferior by birth, and left to die in a violent and brutish dog-eat-dog society? It would be awful.

Indeed

Original post by Abstract_Prism

Besides, the kinds of qualities that would result from natural selection wouldn't be intelligence; it would be aggression and physical strength.

Well seen that intelligence is affected by genetics, I would say intelligence and the pugnacious element .

Original post by Abstract_Prism

In natural selection, the Thug is genetically elite.

Well this is dependent on the selection pressure. If the selection pressure dictates that grouped organisms more likely to survive (by forming strong bonds with eachother and thus more likely to care and protect eachother), then I would disagree here.

Original post by Abstract_Prism

Humanity becomes more intelligent through the sharing of knowledge and exploring together, not through becoming more intelligent by nature.

Well I would say both are necessary, not just one.

However, it is also important to note that many humans that are extremely intelligent, often (well to my knowledge and personal experience) lack other vital skills (eg: social).

"Perfect organisms" that typically have an advantageous combination of skills and qualities (and thus the dominant organisms) are rare, and thus even if they do breed, this system will be prone to the founder effect.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 25

MrsSheldonCooper

Can we drown you first?

Reply 26

Abstract_Prism

Original post by mil88

Indeed

Well seen that intelligence is affected by genetics, I would say intelligence and the pugnacious element .

Well this is dependent on the selection pressure. If the selection pressure dictates that grouped organisms more likely to survive (by forming strong bonds with eachother and thus more likely to care and protect eachother), then I would disagree here.

Well I would say both are necessary, not just one.

However, it is also important to note that many humans that are extremely intelligent, often (well to my knowledge and personal experience) lack other vital skills (eg: social).

"Perfect organisms" that typically have an advantageous combination of skills and qualities (and thus the dominant organisms) are rare, and thus even if they do breed, this system will be prone to the founder effect.

I think at this point, forcing mankind into natural selection wouldn't yield superior individuals; it would just be whoever could get their hands on a firearm or a bomb first.

I don't think it's necessary to enforce the misery of natural selection on humanity again. Humanity is progressing at record-breaking speeds already. There is no need to push it even faster. Besides, natural selection takes millions of years.

Reply 27

RayApparently

Original post by fallen_acorns

if tomorrow the world was taken over by a computer program, always looking for the optimum path to survival/advancement..

Yeah, along with many many many other unpopular decisions, many people would be left to die..

As humans though we are (for the most part) incapable of separating our emotions from situations, so for most of us our decision to let them live or die would be based on our feelings, rather then an analysis of benefits/drawbacks.

(for me personally I would never let them die, but I do believe that they should be taken back to the country they departed from, rather then taken into Europe, as a disincentive for others to risk their lives in a similar way)

That's total BS. The 'optimal path' wouldn't involve culling the population. Assuming a machine is programmed to understand optimal as being the utilitarian 'greatest good for the greatest number'. There are enough resources available for everyone - a 'perfect' machine would redistribute them thus ending poverty, hunger and disease very, very quickly. In case you haven't noticed, we're already leaving many people to die. So much for the puny, bleeding-heart human species incapable of seeing past the brain fog of their emotions...

Reply 28

BobBobson

My point is that why is someone elses pain, or someone elses loss of virtue of life considered bad from the perspective of us.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 29

fallen_acorns

Original post by RayApparently

are enough resources available for everyone .

are there?

Would be interested in seeing you back this up. I remember back when I was at university, many were banding around a number of how many times over we were using the earths resources, something like we were consuming 3.5 times more resources then the earth could sustain, (would need to check the exact number)

--

Also you have added your own definition of progress and an optimum system 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. That in itself is a very human perception of optimum. I am sure a program would calculate a near exact optimum number taking into consideration factors such as resources, collective learning, gene diversity, competition, etc.

Reply 30

username2097061

Original post by Abstract_Prism

I think at this point, forcing mankind into natural selection wouldn't yield superior individuals; it would just be whoever could get their hands on a firearm or a bomb first.

Well that's not natural selection, when you're suggesting we (mankind) enforce the selection pressure.Initially, yes the ones with access to such weapons would appear to possess a selective advantage. However, give it more time, I don't think they will possess that advantage.

Original post by Abstract_Prism

I don't think it's necessary to enforce the misery of natural selection on humanity again.

Like I have previously stated, this is not natural selection.

Original post by Abstract_Prism

Humanity is progressing at record-breaking speeds already. There is no need to push it even faster. Besides, natural selection takes millions of years.

The term "humanity" is clearly a disingenuous term to use. Clearly not all or even most I would say, are progressing at " record-breaking speeds". Speaking in relative terms, a small size of humanity would fit that description.

Reply 31

RayApparently

Original post by fallen_acorns

Overconsumption of resources and inefficient use doesn't mean there isn't enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/15/ending-world-hunger

Optimal is a subjective measure. But nothing is optimal about letting a huge number of people die unnecessarily. That wouldn't be good for 'collective learning' or 'gene diversity' either. The most objective definition of good decisions are the ones that do the most good for the most people. I'd be fascinated to hear you justify the supreme computer overlord's logic in doing an even worse job than humans at progressing humanity.

Reply 32

Betelgeuse-

Why can't we eat them? There is a food crisis in parts of the world and they would be a good source of protein

Reply 33

RayApparently

Original post by vault111

Ray you are a steaming pile of shite and your political views are shite also

Posted from TSR Mobile

If you really wanted to offend me, you'd agree with me.

Reply 34

Trinculo

Original post by richpanda

I wish our world was more 'survival of the fittest' so only the genetic elite could reproduce, and humans would evolve to become incredibly clever and strong

So you're essentially a Nazi?

Reply 35

rom13

Overpopulation is a condition when the number of population exceeds the carrying capacity of Earth. This global problem is not just about lack of food and human suffering. Overpopulation is the leading driver to pollution and environmental collapse. I've found some info about a new project http://planetaryproject.com/global_problems/eco/ that's aimed to save the Earth. I think we all have to teach our children to respect nature and the environment.

Reply 36

Cereser

So true. These people are like rats, then let them drown like rats.

They want to ***** to us about racism when we're on the receiving end of their violence.

Even when you do good to them, they hate us. So Black people can kiss my White ass.

Reply 37

PrincessBO$$

Original post by Cereser

Satan speaks :devil:

Reply 38

al-ShagDaddy

The world isn't overpopulated and the entire concept of overpopulation is fictitious.

Reply 39

Trapz99

Original post by HarrietRandall

In 2015 there were 1,300,000 migrants trying to find asylum in the EU. They make up 0.000175675676% of the world's population. If we were to heartlessly let them all drown, it wouldn't even put a dent in the world's population anyway.