No, they didn't do that. They did notice how living things grow their populations until they're at the maximum that local conditions will allow. In the human equivalent, Norman Borlaug is lauded as the saviour of a billion people in places like Cameroon with his gene-modded crops. So did people grow a rational, steady society with a focus on sustainability and balance with the environment?Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah, they certainly advocated the circulation of an engineered plague to implement eugenics on a mass scale among selected unworthy populations (all of which just-so happen to be poor, desperate Third World people whose current position in life is often wrought in no small part by the extremely privileged and powerful societies we dwell in). You're just grasping for straws when you say something stupid that someone calls out as such.
![Image](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/photogalleries/bushmeat_2/images/primary/P133.jpg)
Of course not. Like a cancer, humanity's growth factors were completely out of control and people kept having the same number of babies they had when there were no vaccinations, no food and most of the babies would die. So what happened? More survived, exponential growth, wa-hey. That growth required even more resources, and thus we're stuck in an arms race with diseases (of course, since now antibiotics have to be applied more, there's now a ton of pathogens resistant to everything) and our ability to feed ourselves. What does cancer do? It just grows wildly, it consumes and spreads, until everything is consumed and then it kills itself, and an unchecked population does the exact same thing. It guarantees scarcity, extinctions and inequality by increasing demand on everything as soon as it can.
You make suicide legal and easy, you import workers from other third world areas, spread the labour markets and the material demands around, rather than have them centralised in areas with low distribution of resources.Hey, I dunno what societies will function without a modern division of labor, and no young people, but I'm sure you've thought of that.Rye wrote:But hey, if you think having 8 babies starve to death per family is better than only being able to physically produce 1 baby that you can allocate all your resources to, go ahead, complain about "bourgeois" pampering and other infantile class war phrasebook fallacies, for all the good that will do you. Surely, unrestricted human breeding has been the best thing for all life on the planet, not just human.
In North Korea? Are you kidding?The society will break down and the last generation will starve or kill each other in collapse. Maybe you're too uneducated and retarded to understand the meaning of the word "fallacy", but I am not suggesting your argument is stupid preposterous because you're a spoiled bitch and I can't imagine anyone who actually lived in these societies cavalierly suggesting mass eugenics (of course, you're not on the chosen receiving end, and you'd just-so-happen also be among those most likely to have the best of it if you were).
Tribal warfare and banditry replaces eugenics in most of the poorest areas like Somalia.
The next wars will be over securing oil and fresh water, another looming crisis that will affect the poorest areas, not coincidentally, frequently the most overpopulated, worst of all.
I'm sure a big population crash will elicit many a tear from yourself, while no doubt dyed in the wool racists like myself will be wanking ourselves dry at the photos of desiccated African corpses belching clouds of ravenous flies. I am sure it will be worth it.
"And when all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death." - Thomas Hobbes
If I could reduce the amount of suffering by reducing the proportion of the population that will have to provide for its needs via murder or dying by being infertile myself, I would gladly do it. The population crash is coming and will affect the poorest worst, when it comes from the next flu, the lack of oil, water, food, and later on when it comes from climate change and Yellowstone erupting. Would you rather there be less people and more stuff to go around, or more people and less stuff to go around?
It's impossible to bureaucratically administer massive central planning to deal with the problems of our own population. A crafted disease bypasses human decision-making and changes the game. Reduce the number of babies born and you increase the value of a human life. Introduce it in places wrecked with poor/no governance first as they have less of a hope of adopting emancipation for women, liberalism, and education towards a slower birthrate.
The part where any of that is meant to matter? As it is, it's e-socialist character assassination, and has about as much worth as bringing up my fondness for metal, which you also did in the depths of your inanity. It's clearly an attempt to attack the messenger rather than message (which you've not really addressed apart from explaining how incredulous you are at it), and is a worker's party herring at absolute best.I'm saying that its stupid and preposterous, and incidentally, given how you're a lucky bastard, its a douchebag and boorish thing for someone in your lucky position to say. Care to point out the fallacy, navel-gazer?
The same Mike who said we should offer drug addicts money to get sterilised (something I agree with)? That terrible nazi eugenicist! Being settled with real responsibilities would be more likely to make me care less about the suffering of the poor and the misled in North Korea, true. I would leave them to rot so long as my kids were okay. This is one of the antisocial dangers of the family.I think pointing out the class basis is just straight-forward sociology. Its not like people on this board, I dunno, insinuate that religious people are stupid and are that way because they're white trash, or anything. Surely not, no. But why reply when you resort to lame-ass Red-baiting? You're a fucking moron.
EDIT: To be fair its probably not just because you're middle-class, it probably also has to do with the fact you're not settled with real responsibilities like a spouse, children, a life of activism or volunteering or a settled career; I can't imagine hearing Mike or MoO say shit like that, and I don't agree with their politics either.