Reaperfan wrote:Must've passed that a long time ago. Ever since hearing Bill Burr's rants on human population years ago I can't seem to disagree that, however unethical it would be to actually suggest, realistically speaking the easiest way to save the planet would be to just eliminate 60%-80% of human life.
Well sure, if you want to be a quitter about it. A far more interesting way would be to send half the Earth's population off to colonize another planet. As long as you don't go the whole European colonialism route with them, they could eventually develop into valuable trading partners, and potential military allies if alien invasions ever become a problem. Of course, if they fail at finding a planet to colonize, then you did just technically eliminate 50% of human life... but doing that on purpose would be wrong, and you wouldn't get the later benefits of space stuff.
Failing that though, it might help to remember that we haven't yet hit the theoretical maximum of food production, even when you don't consider things like tech advancements opening up new and exciting ways to not starve. Yes, this does mean that there are a whole lot of starving people right now who might not actually need to be starving, but we also don't live in a global totalitarian government.
For me, it probably helps that I'm not much of an environmentalist. Might be because I view our existence as largely accidental and evolution as a cruel, sadistic process that can only be improved with the addition of human empathy. (He says, after casually talking about sending 4 billion people away on a suicide mission.)
Oooooh, I do quite enjoy these kind of philosophical discussions of ethics. I can't talk to my dad about this cause his reasoning is.....well, ridiculous. Basically, his argument comes down to, everything happens for a reason and is just, if a child who was just born is starving to death, it is just because..........reasons, like, maybe his father was bad, or in a past life he was bad.....or something (honestly, he doesn't explain it with any reasoning or logic). Also he doesn't believe in evolution at all, or dinosaurs......or a lot of science....and isn't good at understanding other people's ideas and beliefs, so yeah, there are needles broader than his views.
Also, this conversation really sounds like a Hitler was right joke is appropriate somewhere.
As for my views, While I do love the natural world and am often very saddened by its needless destruction, I've become quite apathetic to it all, likely as a coping mechanism cause if I was to emotionally engage with all the tragedies that occur in the world, I would probably literally die of a broken heart. Doesn't help that a lot of humans really just seem hell bent on their own self destruction.
I don't really think evolution and creation as a whole are accidental, rather a combination of various natural and/or artificial factors and influences driven by some natural force (of varying degrees of randomness), or by the mortal being's own will and actions.
There once was a hunter from Nantuckit
Who was going to die anyway, so he said, "fu*k it!"
"I’ll hunt the beasts of Yarnam.
To get blood vials, I’ll farm them,
and kill them all before I kick the bucket."