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.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does the price include choosing a date?
The "wouldn't necessarily" qualifier is pretty namby pamby.I wouldn't necessarily call it a "lie" per se: if we all want to have a specific standard of living....
Resource consumption is a very real problem.....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.
There ya go!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.
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.
Resource consumption is a very real problem.
But which scientists are claiming no worries...
...& using what criteria?
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.
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.
I've read the 1st link. It's enuf to respond thus.A few examples:
Public Health and Overpopulation: The United Nations Takes Action
Debunking ‘overpopulation’
WATCH: Is Overpopulation a Myth?
From the first link:
Does the price include choosing a date?
You posted....They're not claiming "no worries"; just different worries.
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.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.![]()
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.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 can discuss things just fine. I'm a Theology and Philosophy studentI 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.![]()
Good movie. I recommend watching it all the way to the end.Logan's Run was death at age 30.
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.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?
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.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.
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?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.
You use cheques? How quaint!I like your thinking. I choose January 2063
Please make cheques payable to….
They're trying it with transhumanism and that's just as bad.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?