Skip to main content

View Diary: MIT team: global economic collapse by 2030 (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  then I think it's time to rethink (0+ / 0-)

    'what it means to be human' 'cuz 'it' hasn't always been what it is today. Why couldn't self-sacrifice for the benefit of the species be part of humanity's 'meaning'?

    •  Because it's not (0+ / 0-)

      "self-sacrifice" if it's externally enforced.

      And really, listen to yourself.  Your language is uncomfortably close to the folks who dictated "sacrifices" for citizens "for the benefit of the master race" or for the "Fatherland," or for "the Great Soviet Republic," or for "the Great Leap Forward," "[insert your favorite totalitarian movement here]".  It's indistinguishable from the rhetoric of the proponents of the historical eugenics movements.  In all those folks' minds, it was always about "survival" of one flavor or another.

      Humans are capable of doing some pretty terrible things in the name of humanity, and often use the rubric of "survival" as a justification. The older I get, the less I buy it.  

      Another path to survival would be a more equitable distribution of wealth across the world's population.  Raise living standards and educational levels, provide access to birth control and health care, and reproductive rates tend to drop.  As I said, I think we can no longer afford the rich. I think we should take their money away and nationalize (globalize?) their resources. It's as good a pipe dream as any, and far less disturbing to me than the idea of mandated sterilization (which still wouldn't address basic inequities, which I believe are at the heart of our problems).

      "If you fake the funk, your nose will grow." -- Bootsy Collins

      by hepshiba on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 04:02:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  both may be necessary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, itsjim

        the better usage of wealth (but the same question arises: who controls it) and mandatory family planning.

        By the way, I don't think I said a word about mandatory sterilization but rather self sacrifice.

        Personally, I don't think that more equitable spreading of wealth will make a lick of difference if we're talking about 9-10 billion people with even less resources we have today. Either we work out some way to reduce births or we have a mass die off. I think I'd prefer the former.

        •  Right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          This is the point I try to make a lot.

          There is probably no possible equitable distribution of wealth for 7 billion people. At the end of the day, population is the problem.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 09:32:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site