Overpopulation

[kmik]

I thought that rich = educated, but if not, then OK, I agree with you.

Selective breeding sounds cool to me. Parents with high IQ would get a lot of money for having many children. People with low IQ should pay to have infants, or something like that.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

That's horrible, actually.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I thought that rich = educated, but if not, then OK, I agree with you.

Selective breeding sounds cool to me. Parents with high IQ would get a lot of money for having many children. People with low IQ should pay to have infants, or something like that.

This is a horrible idea considering high IQ does not equal inherent intelligence, but rather high skill skill at standerized tests that focus on a few select types of problems, which tend to be conexted in a way that is benifical to bourgeois class which created them. The tests do not take culture or environment into context, so really their value isn't as great as they are made out to be.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I think you have been watching too many programs of cable TV news SS.

actually, i don't watch ANY tv. it disgusts me.

 

[Kenneth R.]

The worth of human life, period? No. Do I believe myself capable of deciding if some people are deserve human life? Yes. Executions and destruction of the human race are not the same thing, which is the claim you seem to be making.

Now, let's take your idea about holding no authority over humanity to it's logical extent:

We have no right to judge people based on their actions, no right to punish criminals. So what do we do when someone commits a rape, or a murder, or any other crime? We let them go, since we have no right to enforce punishment on them or judge.

That system works REAL well, doesn't it? :Smug:

And this is a hypothetical question, so keep that in mind. I don't intend to start questioning your religion, I just want to know how you feel about this.

If it was discovered and proven that there was no over-seeing deity that ruled the Earth, would it then be justified to kill people, under any kind of circumstances? (for purposes of execution, culling the herd, etc.)

for any reason it is NEVER justified.

you don't let criminals go. you jail them so they can't harm others, and you try to show them better ways so they may repent. killing a killer makes you their peer.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I thought that rich = educated, but if not, then OK, I agree with you.

Selective breeding sounds cool to me. Parents with high IQ would get a lot of money for having many children. People with low IQ should pay to have infants, or something like that.

absolutely rediculous. so is the richer=smarter.

what if a rich person forsake all their possession for another way of life? do they instantly become dumber? what if a homeless man found a winning lottery ticket? does he become a genius?

granted, the richer have more opportunity to learn knowledge at schools... but that doesn't make one inherently smart, nor does it mean they will use that knowledge well, or even pay attention. besides, there are lessons money cannot buy, and those regarding the value of a few coins or a day's meal would be taken for granted by the rich, but instantly understood by the poor. further, the poor value what they have much moreso, because they have so little and have obtained it in no easy manner.

 

[the alumnus]

I thought that rich = educated, but if not, then OK, I agree with you.

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. middle eastern oil rich nations are rich and uneducated, by and large. in north america, people who are rich tend to have better access to education than the poor.

 

[infoterror]

speed:

you ask that i find information to prove him wrong, but i respond that he should also attempt to prove me wrong. if you doubt my claims without evidence, logic dictates that you should doubt his without support as well. i am not on defense here, it is a debate, in which all sides are accountable

Dude, you haven't played by debate rules in any of your contributions here. If you want to have a real debate, we can go for it, but you're not going to like rules of evidence or what constitutes a reply, disadvantage vs disprove, and the like.

In fact, you'd be thrown out of any meaningful debate round for many of your spacy, non-sequitur "contributions" here. FYI

 

[infoterror]

absolutely rediculous. so is the richer=smarter.

If you want to move out of the ghetto, that word is "ridiculous." Look like you read a book, eh?

"Richer = smarter" is totall bullshit; it's social darwinism. I've gone into detail why it is a lie, elsewhere, but let this be said: some of this society's best people are its least threatened, thus its least likely to compile wealth for its own sake.

HOWEVER, there is truth to "poorer = fucked up" statement; people who cannot even take care of themselves usually have deep-seated problems, and whether or not it is their "fault," it is a property of them.

 

[infoterror]

developed nations have lower population growth, but i don't believe its tied to income or religion, but rather to education. compare the literacy rate of fast growing population regions to slow growth areas, and then compare the population growth. the correlation is strong.
http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigati...ation/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

Or maybe it's tied to the requirements of a first world economy in some, and to cultural/ethnic attitudes in others.

 

[kmik]

Alumnus - when you compare different countries too many factors get into the point. You should compare between different social classes in the same country.

granted, the richer have more opportunity to learn knowledge at schools... but that doesn't make one inherently smart, nor does it mean they will use that knowledge well, or even pay attention. besides, there are lessons money cannot buy, and those regarding the value of a few coins or a day's meal would be taken for granted by the rich, but instantly understood by the poor. further, the poor value what they have much moreso, because they have so little and have obtained it in no easy manner.

I've never said that richer = smarter, there's a huge difference between smart and educated. To be educated is to know who was Genghis Khan, to be smart is to be able to grasp arguments. Anyhow rich parents do care about their children's education more than poor parents, that is certain. Poor kids often do sidejobs and such and don't really give a fuck about school. Compare between grades of poor and rich children and you'll see the difference. Also note that this is only relevant when we are discussing really poor families. Middle class counts as rich for that matter.

Regarding IQ tests, well, all the people I got to know with high IQ are fairly intelligent, but it's not always true the other way around. That is, there are people who are pretty smart but just happen not to be so good at mathematics at such. Also, people with really low IQ are usually stupid. But let's not get into an IQ discussion

Selective breeding is a relatively humane solution to the problem of overpopulation. If we want to save ourselves, and assuming the population will continue to grow in the current pace then something has to be done. I don't know what the tests could be based on.

 

[The Devil's Steed]

for any reason it is NEVER justified.

you don't let criminals go. you jail them so they can't harm others, and you try to show them better ways so they may repent. killing a killer makes you their peer.

Wrecking someone's life and putting them in a position where they would likely be better off if they were dead isn't anywhere near as bad as killing them? Doesn't make much sense to me. As for killing a killer making you their peer....I strongly disagree with that.

 

[Kenneth R.]

If you want to move out of the ghetto, that word is "ridiculous.".

excuse my typing at 2am. as if you are immune to spelling errors.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Wrecking someone's life and putting them in a position where they would likely be better off if they were dead isn't anywhere near as bad as killing them? Doesn't make much sense to me. As for killing a killer making you their peer....I strongly disagree with that.

how so? this makes no sense.

 

[The Devil's Steed]

It seems to you that killing them is wrong, because we have no right to judge them as worthy of human life. By that theory isn't it wrong to judge them as being worthy of a fate worse than death?

 

[Kenneth R.]

what would you describe as worse than death?

 

[The Devil's Steed]

Being put in the American prison system. Perhaps I'm focusing a bit too much on my personal view of things, but I've seen you do the same, so I consider this fair. Wouldn't being put in a place where you're essentially trapped in a cage for years and on top of that sexually assaulted by other inmates of the same sex and frequently humiliated be worse than simply being put to death in your eyes? It is in mine.

 

[Kenneth R.]

life is better than death. it is that simple. whatever misconduct occurs in prison should be reformed, i do not believe such acts are part of the sentence.

 

[no country for old wainds]

life is better than death. it is that simple.

No. It's highly unlikely to be true even in itself, and it certainly doesn't cover a topic such as this one, which relies on one answering a number of philosophical questions. For a start, define "better" in this context.

 

[no country for old wainds]

whatever misconduct occurs in prison should be reformed, i do not believe such acts are part of the sentence.

"Sure, life is shit for some people, but it shouldn't be! Therefore life is better than death regardless of circumstance."

Is this your argument?