source

But the article is not my main point. Medicine and human rights people are constantly trying to look for ways to prevent death by disease, death by natural disasters, etc., but we as a planet are facing overpopulation in the human population, which is leading to extinction of entire species, the enslavement of multiple animal species, the overuse of fossil fuels, and the over-production of warming gases/hazardous chemicals and toxins.

At some point, don't we have to regulate ourselves? Or at least let nature do its natural form of regulation? (Disease, natural disasters, famine, etc) Why do we constantly struggle to create a bigger human population when we all fully well know our planet and other animals cannot afford it in in the long run, and that there is no shortage of human beings on the planet?

But who chooses who lives and who survives? You can't let everyone die off from natural causes.

that's where evolution/nature comes in though. The biologically strongest/best-adpated survive.

I don't think that would be humane. Imagine if your loved one had a disease, you would want everything to be done to save them.

However, the world population is reaching unsustainable levels. And that causes a decreased quality of life for everyone. So I think a more humane solution would be to try to lower the birth rate (by increased sex education, increasing access to contraceptives in other parts of the world, etc...)

I do wonder if a one child policy would be encouraged or needed in the future though.

I agree that it would not be humane, and I know I would feel the same way about my loved ones

but at the same time idk. The article said that even if the whole world adopted a "one-child policy" like China, the population would still hit 10 billion by the end of the century.

Everytime I read stuff like this I'm glad I will be dead in about 60 years.

No, we should all die and let die.

well, if science accomplishes its goals with stem cell research, cancer research, HIV research, etc, you might have another 80-100 years left.

I believe industrialization could help. Some people would like to maintain certain, unhygienic customs, but if those customs aid in the spread of diseases, they need to be eradicated. It sounds insensitive, but these diseases wouldn't be as widespread if HUMANS would just...progress.

I think this raises another moral dilemma: life extension. If eventually there are ways to extend one's life span by this much, should it be allowed? Obviously this will have a devastating effect on the environment as well with more people living longer.

I agree as well in saying that it is basically inhumane to leave people on their death beds just for having a condition as simple as suffering from asthma. I understand that overpopulation is an incredibly serious problem however i simply don't think letting people die off is the answer. Also, what about the conditions that are debilitating but not fatal to one's life. You're basically doing the opposite of what natural selection seeks by not giving people the greatest quality of life when it is possible.

just let gay people be, we dont reproduce so go us

Ooh good point. I personally don't think its moral nor advantageous to keep people alive unnaturally long, but again, all of that will be perspective. People from the 1700s probably think all of us are living unnaturally long. In 2050, the average life expectancy might be 95, and extending life to 100 or 105 might not seem like such a stretch.

But then from a financial perspective it's even more depressing. The older the population gets, the more it costs for up keep and medical treatment. End-of-life care on average (between heart procedure, emergency surgeries, etc) cost tens-of-thousands of dollars for each patient, versus say hospice care which is cheap, humane, and dignified. Resources in so many ways are just being directed to all sorts of wrong places out of emotion and desire instead of logic.

I agree that letting people die when it could be prevented is the very textbook definition of inhumane, but on a macro-scale, is it such a strange thing? We let whales, chickens, rhinos and all sorts of animals die without blinking an eye, but the taking of a single human life, despite our overabundance, is a simple catastrophe.

Obviously I'm not wishing death on anyone or anything, but it's just funny sometimes to think about the way we think.

Death

Ya'll seen the population figures for the developed countries in Europe? Population control will not be a problem, especially if China becomes more advanced.

A holocaust tea.

But the biologically strongest aren't always the ones we need. You don't see Obama running marathons, do you?

No matter what anyone or anything does nature always finds a way to balance Earth out.