Should we pay people to die?

[SalixIncendium]

Does the price include choosing a date?

No. I stopped dating years ago.

Besides, it just doesn't seem right to choose someone to share in the experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "lie" per se: if we all want to have a specific standard of living....

The "wouldn't necessarily" qualifier is pretty namby pamby.
I detect no dishonesty whatsoever in the position that Earth
is over-populated. We recognize horrible degradation of
our environment, mass extinctions, & soaring cost of
living due to crowding. I've seen no one propose it as
a path to eugenics. If anyone does, then one may criticize
them for it....not all of us who prefer fewer people.

This can be a agree-to-disagree about how best to
optimize quality of life. I suggest that some people
just calm down, listen, & try to understand.

....we have to accept that natural resources such as fossil fuels can't sustain this indefinitely. On the other hand, multiple scientists have argued that "overpopulation" isn't a cause for concern in general.

Resource consumption is a very real problem.
But which scientists are claiming no worries...
...& using what criteria?

Our current way of life would still be unsustainable even if we stopped reproducing today. I think it makes more sense to focus on sustainability and better distribution of populations (i.e., avoiding overcrowding and concentration on only small parts of available land) than on our numbers.

There ya go!
I'll not carp about this paragraph.
I agree.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, that's disgusting and seriously morally depraved. The idea that we're overpopulated or will become so is a misanthropic lie providing cover for the revival of eugenics. It must be rejected lest horrors ensue. We're actually set to have the opposite problem - a shrinking population due to plummeting birth rates. We badly need to start having children in developed countries because we're gonna have a ton of old people and not enough young people. This is already causing problems.

You jest. The world population is rising alarmingly. People in developed countries live on the same one planet as everyone else. Jeez.

"The world’s population is expected to increase by nearly 2 billion persons in the next 30 years"

- Population | United Nations

 

[Rival]

This thread has disgusted and baffled me.

The West has already declined economically and in its position on the world stage, and now it seems much of its population wants to kill itself to speed up the process in the name of 'progress'.

I fail to see how legalising the assisted suicide of healthy people is any kind of progress, or paying people to stop having children, or any other of this life-denying garbage.

There are better ways than killing people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Resource consumption is a very real problem.
But which scientists are claiming no worries...
...& using what criteria?

They're not claiming "no worries"; just different worries. A few examples:

Public Health and Overpopulation: The United Nations Takes Action

Debunking ‘overpopulation’

WATCH: Is Overpopulation a Myth?

From the first link:

The Way Forward

Ultimately, apocalyptic population growth fears are overblown, and as such, draconian population control regulations are unnecessary. We have witnessed progress on an international scale in this area, perhaps most notably with China revoking its infamous, longstanding one-child policy just seven years ago. However, a broader global focus on guaranteeing family planning as a human right remains essential. In the words of economist Julian Simon, “Whatever the rate of population growth is, historically it has been that the food supply increases at least as fast, if not faster.” Since Ehrlich’s initial fear-mongering regarding an overpopulation-induced Armageddon, the planet’s population has more than doubled. However, annually, famine deaths have dropped by millions. Today’s famines are war-induced, not caused by natural resource consumption.

 

[Quintessence]

When we are talking about population growth really we are talking about China, Africa, India, and the Middle East. To call this worldwide is incredibly misleading.

From the perspective of an ecologist, not at all. The world is interconnected, particularly global ecosystems and ecosystem services. The impact of humans is global, and some scientists have taken to calling the present era the "anthropocene" for precisely this reason. IIRC current proposals are putting the start of it right around when human population started to skyrocket (along with human impacts). Other proposals suggest placing the start of the anthropocene somewhere around the development of agriculture.

In any case, it's pretty much agreed that humans have significantly overshot the carrying capacity - something that wouldn't have been possible without technology - and the sixth mass extinction is the result (along with climate change, which is symptomatic of this larger issue of human activities). The interplay of the various bits of the IPAT equation vary by region though, so it's not incorrect to point out the weight of the P, T, and A factors are different regionally as you're doing here. But it is also important to understand we're dealing with global, interconnected systems that aren't happening in an isolated vacuum from one another.

 

[Quintessence]

Some additional reading for the interested:

For Planet Earth, This Might Be the Start of a New Age

And also a nice article on the founder of VHEMT which the OP might find interesting:

Earth Now Has 8 Billion Humans. This Man Wishes There Were None.

 

[Revoltingest]

A few examples:

Public Health and Overpopulation: The United Nations Takes Action

Debunking ‘overpopulation’

WATCH: Is Overpopulation a Myth?

From the first link:

I've read the 1st link. It's enuf to respond thus.
Your quote doesn't quite support your claim...
".... isn't a cause for concern in general."

I find the article egregious in its focusing upon
ability to feed a great population growth, while
ignoring deleterious environmental, economic,
& social consequences. They don't consider
the desire of 3rd world countries to live western
lifestyles, & where this will lead with even more
people, exacerbating the problems we now have.

Finally, the article introduces the provocative
statement....
"Therefore, the enactment of heavy-handed population-control regulations is not only abhorrent, but is also irrational and unsupported by scientific evidence."
This isn't even on the table in western governments,
yet we see people frightened that this is the threat.
It impedes discussion of the problem.


I don't know about you, but I value the natural
environment. To face its continued degradation
in order to increase the population is really bad
(IMO).
I read about the oceans being denuded of life,
of rainforests being rapidly burned, of macro &
micro plastics being in everything everywhere,
about soaring costs of living in ever more crowded
cities, of land lost to rising seas, of mass extinctions,
ie, the Anthropocene Extinction.
More people means more of those effects. I see
some don't care about that, & want even more people
on the planet. But their lack of concern doesn't mean
"over-population" is bogus or a hoax..only that they're
much less with the effects of population increase.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Does the price include choosing a date?

I like your thinking. I choose January 2063



Please make cheques payable to….

 

[Revoltingest]

They're not claiming "no worries"; just different worries.

You posted....
"...isn't a cause for concern in general."
This matches my "no worries" inference
better than your "just different worries".

 

[The Hammer]

That is, if the population does become a strain on (Earth) resources and might lead to calamity (in the future), should we offer inducements (financial or otherwise, and which might benefit relatives or others) for those who might want to end their lives, for whatever reasons?

Please discuss.

Nope. Just start a war.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is, if the population does become a strain on (Earth) resources and might lead to calamity (in the future), should we offer inducements (financial or otherwise, and which might benefit relatives or others) for those who might want to end their lives, for whatever reasons?

Please discuss.

That's sick and twisted... and no.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This thread has disgusted and baffled me.

The West has already declined economically and in its position on the world stage, and now it seems much of its population wants to kill itself to speed up the process in the name of 'progress'.

I fail to see how legalising the assisted suicide of healthy people is any kind of progress, or paying people to stop having children, or any other of this life-denying garbage.

There are better ways than killing people.

I think you need to get out more - so as to be able to discuss unpleasant subjects with some objectivity without getting so emotional. I don't see any here advocating exterminating people.

 

[Rival]

I think you need to get out more - so as to be able to discuss unpleasant subjects with some objectivity without getting so emotional. I don't see any here advocating exterminating people.

I can discuss things just fine. I'm a Theology and Philosophy student

I'm genuinely appalled and now even more appalled that people can look at this and think this is going to be an unemotional issue, a negotiable? Literally paying people to kill themselves (how is that not extermination through the back door? And we know it will be poor people). And you don't expect people to lose their ****? That's the normal reaction to something like this. That people think this is even a workable idea is beyond me. The normal reaction to suicide is one of horror and sadness, why when it's on a national scale is it all of a sudden a negotiable idea?

 

[fantome profane]

Logan's Run was death at age 30.

Good movie. I recommend watching it all the way to the end.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I can discuss things just fine. I'm a Theology and Philosophy student

I'm genuinely appalled and now even more appalled that people can look at this and think this is going to be an unemotional issue? Literally paying people to kill themselves (how is that not extermination through the back door? And we know it will be poor people). And you don't expect people to lose their ****? That's the normal reaction to something like this. That people think this is even a workable idea is beyond me. The normal reaction to suicide is one of horror and sadness, why when it's on a national scale is it all of a sudden a negotiable idea?

Many support euthanasia - and it happens - but you seem to see such as more akin to murder. The OP is more about life becoming almost as bad in the future for many more - if the population grew too large and such became a possibility. So more a theoretical possibility.

 

[Rival]

Many support euthanasia - and it happens - but you seem to see such as more akin to murder. The OP is more about life becoming almost as bad in the future for many more - if the population grew too large and such became a possibility. So more a theoretical possibility.

Saying 'The planet is overpopulated your life's a bit **** why not kill yourself?' but in more polite words is not exactly a positive message. Maybe if you're an atheist it works, but for the majority of religious people not only is it sinful, it lacks the life affirming element they seek to perpetuate. As well as that, it takes a strongly nihilistic view that your life can't get any better and there's no point trying and because you're part of the human race this is ultimately somewhat your fault so why don't you just die.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Saying 'The planet is overpopulated your life's a bit **** why not kill yourself?' but in more polite words is not exactly a positive message. Maybe if you're an atheist it works, but for the majority of religious people not only is it sinful, it lacks the life affirming element they seek to perpetuate. As well as that, it takes a strongly nihilistic view that your life can't get any better and there's no point trying and because you're part of the human race this is ultimately somewhat your fault so why don't you just die.

Given I don't tend to believe the predictions of the various religions, and hardly see them contributing to the harmony of the planet, I'm more worried as to the mess that might unfold in the future - and as to too large a population being just one aspect - such that perhaps societies might find ways to control overpopulation. This isn't about religion or no religion, it is more about what future societies might have to resort to if and when life becomes unmanageable. How far can you see into the future?

 

[Secret Chief]

I like your thinking. I choose January 2063



Please make cheques payable to….

You use cheques? How quaint!

 

[Rival]

Given I don't tend to believe the predictions of the various religions, and hardly see them contributing to the harmony of the planet, I'm more worried as to the mess that might unfold in the future - and as to too large a population being just one aspect - such that perhaps societies might find ways to control overpopulation. This isn't about religion or no religion, it is more about what future societies might have to resort to if and when life becomes unmanageable. How far can you see into the future?

They're trying it with transhumanism and that's just as bad.