Should we pay people to die?

[Sand Dancer]

Evolution is biological. Acquisition of knowledge has biological value. There’s no need to split its effects from the rest of what makes an animal species thrive.

Okay then, maybe the author is FOS.

 

[Heyo]

Why? Surely it is more elegant by far that we solve our chronic labour shortage by giving a hand up to people from poorer places? What's the harm in that?

I understand the xenophobia of US Americans. After all, the new immigrants could be as bad as the immigrants that were their ancestors. And the children of the new immigrants could be as bad as current US Americans.
Would you want to live in such a neighbourhood?

 

[Heyo]

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.

Or to the year 1945. Just like geologists can detect the K-T boundary by Iridium traces after 65 million years, future geologists will be able to detect the Anthropocene by the transuranic elements we leave behind.

 

[Aštra’el]

So many voices… so many directions….

…

Yes! Incentivize people with strong genes, desirable genetic qualities, stable income, healthy lifestyles, and clean records to reproduce. They can provide for their progeny, having built the foundation for fulfilling lives. Incentivize people with mental illness, serious hereditary conditions, little to no income, unhealthy lifestyles, and significant criminal records to get sterilized or euthanized. They can enjoy life, while not cursing their neverborn children to a life of poverty, missed opportunities, and hopelessness! Do not doom your children to envy what they can never have!

…

…

No! Life is too precious! Suffering makes one strong. Encourage everyone to survive, and to be the best they can be. Do better. Live! Achieve! Triumph! Reach for the stars! If this world can no longer provide, then find or build another! Understand your weaknesses and develop strengths so that you might rise from the depths of hopelessness! You have life! Do something with it! So what if you are drowning in the Abyss. Find a way out! It is never too late!

…

How to feel? There are so many directions, and yet… there is no right or wrong in this. What to do? What position to take? I honestly do not know what to think or feel on this subject.

 

[rational experiences]

As theists lie.

Money is a money system.

A human as a false god invented the money system.

Money has no status in natural law.

Parents humans. Natural. First. Environment the ground covered body supported them. Garden. In every country.

Enough food for everyone in natural laws. As highest species is natural species. First. Any species.

Theists defined mutated species advice in the past equalled little ground food and humans starvation.

Isn't now. It was the past.

We own a glut of food wasted. Grown. Owns expiry date. Thrown away.

Glut of food in countries ground covered in nature now owns food growth for family without in other countries.

Therefore food glut is sitting on shelves needs to be dealt with differently. To honour foods production and use. Wastage should be stopped of any food.

Once we are in need.
Only in iced conditions was human naked body natural covered by clothing as it was cold.
Did you accumulate food to get past winter. Yes says life.

Real human awareness.

Women..now I bare my naked body in public. Its not just sexual. Babies are born naked. Tribal communities respected the body.

So today totally indoctrinated controlled human theists by science once again wanted you to agree with life by science choice to be sacrificed murdered.

As it's only theists who invent new machines in full wisdom it will cause life's sacrifice and nature in heavens above.

Is who theories against us all.

Our parents were one hundred percent healthy.

Unlike our chemical brain disturbance were not motivated to have continual sex. Proven by dying humans who hurt babies now by continued sex to die too. Mind overcome by propagation survival.

Never had a lot of children a long time ago.

So it's human responsibility now to realise large human families are not humans success.

It has nothing to do with being unhealthy or why life exists too long ....by given medical support maybe just let them die by introduced sickness by science theisms.

We never were unhealthy first. It's science who says an unhealthy human was a monkey human. Theists.

Our cooled atmosphere says a healthy human was always first.

The answer is humans own a human choice to live responsibly. We once did.

The only reason future life will die is by science machines that kill of grounds garden nature body. As they did before.

It's why science saved seeds as science is aware what science is causing itself.

Scientists theory about their own theist selves.

Therefore as men like to rape women..maybe science should introduce early age male vasectomies.

Instead of depending on women to stop you. As you seem to be the human with a lack of self control both in theism and behaviours.

 

[Mock Turtle]

When a species become overpopulated, the signs and symptoms resolve the problem without any need for intervention. Humanity's constant meddling is what got it and the rest of the biosphere into this sixth mass extinction event to begin with. There is no need to overthink any of this and come up with solutions. The solutions already exist and are already being deployed by inherent limits in nature. There is no need to do anything at all. Some humans simply believe they should do something or want to do something.

As far as that conversation goes, with the P factor one either throttles birth rates or death rates, and there are many, many ways to do that. Paying humans to die is possibly one of the least viable death rate throttles I've heard of and its a cultural non-starter. I don't blame some others in this thread for calling that out as nonsense.

Well it was just an idle thought, and not meant to be taken that seriously. But given that we, as humans overall, seem to be less inclined towards socialism, and where the wealth gap seems to continually increase, perhaps such a suggestion might come forward from certain areas of the population in the future.

 

[Quintessence]

Well it was just an idle thought, and not meant to be taken that seriously. But given that we, as humans overall, seem to be less inclined towards socialism, and where the wealth gap seems to continually increase, perhaps such a suggestion might come forward from certain areas of the population in the future.

In making these appraisals, I'd take care not to assess everything from a Western-centric, American-centric, or Euro-centric perspective. It is important not to mistake temporary and ever-changing pattens in one's own surrounding culture for larger habits. Consider that for the overwhelming majority of human history, these wealth gaps basically did not exist, because wealth itself didn't exist. Humans simply lived off the land, moving around from place to place, and didn't settle until very recently in their species' history. That same pattern of settling - the development of agriculture, then civilization - created the conditions that permit wealth to exist. Disparities in it will exist so long as the conditions that allow it to be exist. There is no solving that until civilization ends. Or until we invent ourselves into Star Trek materializers.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

"Overpopulation" isn't the issue, and is really only ever the jump-point into eugenics.

Modern society, in seeming to now require a college education and subsequent successful career to allow one to reproduce, has with that level of selection pressure, put an unprecedented stipulation on the base population. It does not seem to occur elsewhere in history. This new reality is combined with the nature of hyper-competitive capitalism, and soaring home values. So for example, I as an uneducated forklift driver, feel no stability in the notion of reproduction. I simply don't make enough money. Whereas if I had some analogous manual labor job a century ago, I would likely not feel much pressure at all.

So the argument that follows from this might be, that we are already using selection pressure pretty vigorously.

 

[syo]

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.

You're joking, right?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Modern society, in seeming to now require a college education and subsequent successful career to allow one to reproduce

No, we really don't. Else people who live below the poverty line would not be having children, and yet they are. It is not only college graduates with "successful" careers that have children.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

No, we really don't. Else people who live below the poverty line would not be having children, and yet they are. It is not only college graduates with "successful" careers that have children.

No it's not only the latter that do it, but the former seem like they suffer more than before, (with some exceptions) for the decision, as working class people. You don't think it's discouraged at all in modern society, for non-college educated people to reproduce?

My grandpa was never educated, but he had three kids while working construction and snow plowing, and he owned a house. That kind of thing doesn't seem quite as tenable now, for a working class person

 

[Mock Turtle]

You're joking, right?

Well at least you didn't go off on a rant.

Did you suspect there was something other than the bald question?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You don't think it's discouraged at all in modern society, for non-college educated people to reproduce?

Correct, I do not think that. In fact, I would say that it's encouraged for low-wage, non-graduate people, despite the challenges that come with it.