Which My GNR Forum Member Would Make the Best World Leader?

[Ace Nova]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

I still don't think you have read all I have written. The sentence above was in the context of arguing whether such a drastic measure would be achievable not whether it was condonable.

If you actually DO read the rests of my posts you will see that in this hypothetical scenario my ideal premise is that I am elected based on my policies and hence people would willingly accept a two-child maximum. In other words, such a law would be welcomed and any parallels to China is flawed (because there it was a law imposed on a largely opposing population). In the case there is a large minority that are opposed, which is not implausible, and the alternative is mass extinction due to the consequences of an ever-spiralling over-population, then normal legislative measures (whips and carrots) in addition to informing an ignorant population on why it is imperative to realize this objective, would be implemented to stimulate people into following the policy.

I think you may have just short-circuited.

'nuff said.

SoulMonster shall never be our world leader.

Thanks for clarifying.

[SoulMonster]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

I still don't think you have read all I have written. The sentence above was in the context of arguing whether such a drastic measure would be achievable not whether it was condonable.

If you actually DO read the rests of my posts you will see that in this hypothetical scenario my ideal premise is that I am elected based on my policies and hence people would willingly accept a two-child maximum. In other words, such a law would be welcomed and any parallels to China is flawed (because there it was a law imposed on a largely opposing population). In the case there is a large minority that are opposed, which is not implausible, and the alternative is mass extinction due to the consequences of an ever-spiralling over-population, then normal legislative measures (whips and carrots) in addition to informing an ignorant population on why it is imperative to realize this objective, would be implemented to stimulate people into following the policy.

I think you may have just short-circuited.

'nuff said.

SoulMonster shall never be our world leader.

Thanks for clarifying.

Why is a two-child maximum rule so bad when the premise is continuous population increase that leads to climate change, pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, wars over scarce resources, conflicts due to congestions, and risk of pandemics?

The question is how to make the net global reproduction rate to be less than 2, not whether this would be good for us or not whihc should be abundantly clear given my premise above. And the how is a combination of increased awareness of the problem and normal legislative measures (carrots and whips), and, in the absolute worst case scenario when nothing else worked and we were heading for disaster, sterilization after second child born.

Do a cost-benefit analysis for me and list the bad implications of humans not being allowed to have three kids or more and compare to the list above of good implications. And don't give me any drunken follies about this being a limitation on humans god-given right to have as many kids as we god damn want to! Modern socities already impose numerous limitations to our behaviour, one more wouldn't make much of a difference, so you gotta come up with something more substantial about why exactly this limitation would be so bad for us.

[Ace Nova]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

I still don't think you have read all I have written. The sentence above was in the context of arguing whether such a drastic measure would be achievable not whether it was condonable.

If you actually DO read the rests of my posts you will see that in this hypothetical scenario my ideal premise is that I am elected based on my policies and hence people would willingly accept a two-child maximum. In other words, such a law would be welcomed and any parallels to China is flawed (because there it was a law imposed on a largely opposing population). In the case there is a large minority that are opposed, which is not implausible, and the alternative is mass extinction due to the consequences of an ever-spiralling over-population, then normal legislative measures (whips and carrots) in addition to informing an ignorant population on why it is imperative to realize this objective, would be implemented to stimulate people into following the policy.

I think you may have just short-circuited.

'nuff said.

SoulMonster shall never be our world leader.

Thanks for clarifying.

Why is a two-child maximum rule so bad when the premise is continuous population increase that leads to climate change, pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, wars over scarce resources, conflicts due to congestions, and risk of pandemics?

The question is how to make the net global reproduction rate to be less than 2, not whether this would be good for us or not whihc should be abundantly clear given my premise above. And the how is a combination of increased awareness of the problem and normal legislative measures (carrots and whips), and, in the absolute worst case scenario when nothing else worked and we were heading for disaster, sterilization after second child born.

Do a cost-benefit analysis for me and list the bad implications of humans not being allowed to have three kids or more and compare to the list above of good implications. And don't give me any drunken follies about this being a limitation on humans god-given right to have as many kids as we god damn want to! Modern socities already impose numerous limitations to our behaviour, one more wouldn't make much of a difference, so you gotta come up with something more substantial about why exactly this limitation would be so bad for us.

It's about free will, bro.

Free will.

[SoulMonster]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

I still don't think you have read all I have written. The sentence above was in the context of arguing whether such a drastic measure would be achievable not whether it was condonable.

If you actually DO read the rests of my posts you will see that in this hypothetical scenario my ideal premise is that I am elected based on my policies and hence people would willingly accept a two-child maximum. In other words, such a law would be welcomed and any parallels to China is flawed (because there it was a law imposed on a largely opposing population). In the case there is a large minority that are opposed, which is not implausible, and the alternative is mass extinction due to the consequences of an ever-spiralling over-population, then normal legislative measures (whips and carrots) in addition to informing an ignorant population on why it is imperative to realize this objective, would be implemented to stimulate people into following the policy.

I think you may have just short-circuited.

'nuff said.

SoulMonster shall never be our world leader.

Thanks for clarifying.

Why is a two-child maximum rule so bad when the premise is continuous population increase that leads to climate change, pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, wars over scarce resources, conflicts due to congestions, and risk of pandemics?

The question is how to make the net global reproduction rate to be less than 2, not whether this would be good for us or not whihc should be abundantly clear given my premise above. And the how is a combination of increased awareness of the problem and normal legislative measures (carrots and whips), and, in the absolute worst case scenario when nothing else worked and we were heading for disaster, sterilization after second child born.

Do a cost-benefit analysis for me and list the bad implications of humans not being allowed to have three kids or more and compare to the list above of good implications. And don't give me any drunken follies about this being a limitation on humans god-given right to have as many kids as we god damn want to! Modern socities already impose numerous limitations to our behaviour, one more wouldn't make much of a difference, so you gotta come up with something more substantial about why exactly this limitation would be so bad for us.

It's about free will, bro.

Free will.

I wasn't aware you are an anarchist opposed to all laws and regulations that limits your freedom to do whatever you want to do.

[Ace Nova]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

I still don't think you have read all I have written. The sentence above was in the context of arguing whether such a drastic measure would be achievable not whether it was condonable.

If you actually DO read the rests of my posts you will see that in this hypothetical scenario my ideal premise is that I am elected based on my policies and hence people would willingly accept a two-child maximum. In other words, such a law would be welcomed and any parallels to China is flawed (because there it was a law imposed on a largely opposing population). In the case there is a large minority that are opposed, which is not implausible, and the alternative is mass extinction due to the consequences of an ever-spiralling over-population, then normal legislative measures (whips and carrots) in addition to informing an ignorant population on why it is imperative to realize this objective, would be implemented to stimulate people into following the policy.

I think you may have just short-circuited.

'nuff said.

SoulMonster shall never be our world leader.

Thanks for clarifying.

Why is a two-child maximum rule so bad when the premise is continuous population increase that leads to climate change, pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, wars over scarce resources, conflicts due to congestions, and risk of pandemics?

The question is how to make the net global reproduction rate to be less than 2, not whether this would be good for us or not whihc should be abundantly clear given my premise above. And the how is a combination of increased awareness of the problem and normal legislative measures (carrots and whips), and, in the absolute worst case scenario when nothing else worked and we were heading for disaster, sterilization after second child born.

Do a cost-benefit analysis for me and list the bad implications of humans not being allowed to have three kids or more and compare to the list above of good implications. And don't give me any drunken follies about this being a limitation on humans god-given right to have as many kids as we god damn want to! Modern socities already impose numerous limitations to our behaviour, one more wouldn't make much of a difference, so you gotta come up with something more substantial about why exactly this limitation would be so bad for us.

It's about free will, bro.

Free will.

I wasn't aware you are an anarchist opposed to all laws and regulations that limits your freedom to do whatever you want to do.

No, brother, I am not. This is about natural law. You are attempting to overrule natural law...and that, unfortunately, cannot be done....not in a free society, anyway.

[SoulMonster]

No, brother, I am not. This is about natural law. You are attempting to overrule natural law...and that, unfortunately, cannot be done....not in a free society, anyway.

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I also don't think that not being allowed to have three kids really is that much of a sacrifice It's not like we are talking about people sacrificing their lives in war, or anything. And lastly, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted, a cap o repoduction tat still allows averyone to have two kids, if they so desire, is a rather unaggressive policy (and it can be, because this policy would slowly reduce the population, which is okay since the effects of overpopulation is still somewhat limited).

Edited December 9, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Ace Nova]

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I alsodon't think that not being allowed to have three kids really isn't that much of a sacrifice After all, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted.

You're much better than this.

Anyway.

Do you believe in evolution?

[SoulMonster]

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I alsodon't think that not being allowed to have three kids really isn't that much of a sacrifice After all, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted.

You're much better than this.

Anyway.

Do you believe in evolution?

Even better than this? Wow, I am flattered. You are not doing too bad, either! Still waiting for you to explain why some humans' desire to have more than two kids trumphs the need to curb population growth and thus reduce climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, fighting over resources, risk of pandemics, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, and ultimately, our own demise, though, but I guess it is coming.

Yes, I know that darwinian evolution is the process that has created the immense variation of life forms on Earth, both extant and extinct.

[Ace Nova]

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I alsodon't think that not being allowed to have three kids really isn't that much of a sacrifice After all, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted.

You're much better than this.

Anyway.

Do you believe in evolution?

Even better than this? Wow, I am flattered. You are not doing too bad, either! Still waiting for you to explain why some humans' desire to have more than two kids trumphs the need to curb population growth and thus reduce climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, fighting over resources, risk of pandemics, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, and ultimately, our own demise, though, but I guess it is coming.

Yes, I know that darwinian evolution is the process that has created the immense variation of life forms on Earth, both extant and extinct.

So who are you!?!?......... to try to control the "process that has created the immense variation of life forms on Earth, both extant and extinct".

Just sayin'

Edited December 9, 2014 by Kasanova King

[netcat]

SM, im confused. are you gonna enforce your policy, are you gonna educate the ignorant citizens (who constitute the vast majority of the Earth population) or are you gonna go with the stream of public polls?

btw i absolutely agree with you on this one:

A democratically chosen leader is there to execute the will of the people, not to force his own will unto them, nor is that really achieveable.

in the 19th century politicians believed in educating the ignorant majority, now they believe in doing what the ignorant majority had told them. and we call it a progress

Edited December 9, 2014 by netcat

[SoulMonster]

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I alsodon't think that not being allowed to have three kids really isn't that much of a sacrifice After all, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted.

You're much better than this.

Anyway.

Do you believe in evolution?

Even better than this? Wow, I am flattered. You are not doing too bad, either! Still waiting for you to explain why some humans' desire to have more than two kids trumphs the need to curb population growth and thus reduce climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, fighting over resources, risk of pandemics, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, and ultimately, our own demise, though, but I guess it is coming.

Yes, I know that darwinian evolution is the process that has created the immense variation of life forms on Earth, both extant and extinct.

WTF. bro....you keep talking about how humanity is killing itself....but you won't answer a simple question.

Do you believe in evolution?

That is the question.

I actually think the premise of why I would want to curb population growth is highly relevant to our discussion. It is also important to fully understand the vacuity in your refusal to accept such a limitation based on nothing more than a vapid belief in "natural law" and "what should be".

Now you have gone from not reading all my posts to not reading everything in my posts, because my last sentence was definitely an affirmative to your question.

SM, im confused. are you gonna enforce your policy, are you gonna educate the ignorant citizens (who constitute the vast majority of the Earth population) or are you gonna go with the stream of public polls?

Whatever is needed to implement the policy with the less conflict and opposition, balanced with the haste of having it implemented.

[Ace Nova]

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I alsodon't think that not being allowed to have three kids really isn't that much of a sacrifice After all, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted.

You're much better than this.

Anyway.

Do you believe in evolution?

Even better than this? Wow, I am flattered. You are not doing too bad, either! Still waiting for you to explain why some humans' desire to have more than two kids trumphs the need to curb population growth and thus reduce climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, fighting over resources, risk of pandemics, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, and ultimately, our own demise, though, but I guess it is coming.

Yes, I know that darwinian evolution is the process that has created the immense variation of life forms on Earth, both extant and extinct.

WTF. bro....you keep talking about how humanity is killing itself....but you won't answer a simple question.

Do you believe in evolution?

That is the question.

I actually think the premise of why I would want to curb population growth is highly relevant to our discussion. It is also important to fully understand the vacuity in your refusal to accept such a limitation based on nothing more than a vapid belief in "natural law" and "what should be".

Now you have gone from not reading all my posts to not reading everything in my posts, because my last sentence was definitely an affirmative to your question.

SM, im confused. are you gonna enforce your policy, are you gonna educate the ignorant citizens (who constitute the vast majority of the Earth population) or are you gonna go with the stream of public polls?

Whatever is needed to implement the policy with the less conflict and opposition, balanced with the haste of having it implemented.

That's horrible.

You are no different than every tyrant that has failed.

[netcat]

anyway, we are talking about some hypothetical society of the future that somehow voted for the world leader who wants to fuck up their basic instinct and reduce their reproduction rights

in reality, with all the current cultural and mentality differences the world government is a terrible idea

[SoulMonster]

There is a "natural law" that says humans should be allowed to have more than two kids? Wow. Where can I read this natural law? (I was thinking about suggesting a few bible verses but couldn't bother to look them up.) Lastly, why is this "natural law" more important than securing humanity from the severe effects of continuous overpopulation? Not much good having lofty ideals about "natural laws" when our world crumbles down, is there?

As World Leader I would be all about making the pragmatic and occasionally hard choices that would preserve our species and the world we live in for the future, and not very eager to please dogmatic and awfully short-sighted viewpoints. As a general rule I think leaders should be able to lift their eyes from the now and consider future generations, and be able to become unpopular if it is without doubt for the betterment of humanity. I alsodon't think that not being allowed to have three kids really isn't that much of a sacrifice After all, we are looking at a pretty dark future if the explosive population growth isn't somehow stunted.

You're much better than this.

Anyway.

Do you believe in evolution?

Even better than this? Wow, I am flattered. You are not doing too bad, either! Still waiting for you to explain why some humans' desire to have more than two kids trumphs the need to curb population growth and thus reduce climate change, pollution, scarcity of resources, fighting over resources, risk of pandemics, mass extinction of other life forms, breakdown of ecosystems, and ultimately, our own demise, though, but I guess it is coming.

Yes, I know that darwinian evolution is the process that has created the immense variation of life forms on Earth, both extant and extinct.

WTF. bro....you keep talking about how humanity is killing itself....but you won't answer a simple question.

Do you believe in evolution?

That is the question.

I actually think the premise of why I would want to curb population growth is highly relevant to our discussion. It is also important to fully understand the vacuity in your refusal to accept such a limitation based on nothing more than a vapid belief in "natural law" and "what should be".

Now you have gone from not reading all my posts to not reading everything in my posts, because my last sentence was definitely an affirmative to your question.

SM, im confused. are you gonna enforce your policy, are you gonna educate the ignorant citizens (who constitute the vast majority of the Earth population) or are you gonna go with the stream of public polls?

Whatever is needed to implement the policy with the less conflict and opposition, balanced with the haste of having it implemented.

That's horrible.

You are no different than every tyrant that has failed.

You talking about the evolution thingy or that I would do exactly the same thing that every other modern society does to make sure their laws are abided?

[SoulMonster]

anyway, we are talking about some hypothetical society of the future that somehow voted for the world leader who wants to fuck up their basic instinct and reduce their reproduction rights

in reality, with all the current cultural and mentality differences the world government is a terrible idea

Yes, a hypothetical society inwhich people have realized they are heading for disaster and that the only fix through reduction in population growth. I am sure people would be okay with sacrificing their "basic instinct" (!) and their "reproductive right" (!) to make that happen. And let's not get carried away by picturing the horrible scenes of humans crying in anguish of not being allowed to have that third, fourth or fifth child. Oh the horror of only having two kids! It's just unbearable. Only slightly less worse than all the negative effects of a population growth spiralling out of control and humanity heading for disaster, right.

I think a world goverment is a great idea on a more long-term scale. I would like to reorganize, redesign and strengthen UN immediately, actually. It should be remodelled into a true democratic organization based on an accepted list of human rights (no, having three kids would not be among those), with the power to not only implement juridiction but enforce it if necesarry. I like to compare the globe today to situation in regions prior to forming the first rudimentary states, just inhouse fighting and ineffciencies. The world as a whole need to go through the same process of state-ification, meaning that we unite under one (democratic) leadership. Sure, it can't be done rapidly, people must agree on the necessity of it, but eventually we will need to stand united and then we would be better off with some global leadership.

Edited December 9, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

Im gonna spearhead a campaign of Guerilla warfare against Soulmonsters evil regime with a serious of terrorist attacks (its always about terror with my lot eh? ).

I wish to be known hence forth as Che Godber

[netcat]

right now UN is a fucking circus with Russian evil clowns starring in it. in fact i think it's so discredited that reorganization and redesign is not the answer anymore

[Damn_Smooth]

Im gonna spearhead a campaign of Guerilla warfare against Soulmonsters evil regime with a serious of terrorist attacks (its always about terror with my lot eh? ).

I wish to be known hence forth as Che Godber

I'm going to run around impregnating as many women as I can because fuck the police.

[Len Cnut]

El Commandante Che Godbervara approves heartily, for we need lots of young sprogs running around to repopulate the nation after i enact the summary execution of Soulmonsters cabinet...and voters

Thats blind-fold, last fag, face the wall and see you in hell you fascist cocksmokers

The wall'll probably become a shrine to budding revolutionaries everywhere. I think i'll call it 'The Wall of Dead Bitches'.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[netcat]

Im gonna spearhead a campaign of Guerilla warfare against Soulmonsters evil regime with a serious of terrorist attacks (its always about terror with my lot eh? ).

I wish to be known hence forth as Che Godber

I'm going to run around impregnating as many women as I can because fuck the police.

SM said 2 kids max per couple. you will be a model citizen in this world

[DieselDaisy]

I have never heard anything so ghastly as Soul's belief in my life. The Americans and Nazis used to sterilise 'retarded people' in the 1930s. It turns out - a modern reading of the evidence tells us - that some of these people were simply, slow learners, eccentrics, etc.

[Damn_Smooth]

Im gonna spearhead a campaign of Guerilla warfare against Soulmonsters evil regime with a serious of terrorist attacks (its always about terror with my lot eh? ).

I wish to be known hence forth as Che Godber

I'm going to run around impregnating as many women as I can because fuck the police.

SM said 2 kids max per couple. you will be a model citizen in this world

Then I'll have to impregnate all of the women 3 times because fuck the police.

[SoulMonster]

I have never heard anything so ghastly as Soul's belief in my life. The Americans and Nazis used to sterilise 'retarded people' in the 1930s. It turns out - a modern reading of the evidence tells us - that some of these people were simply, slow learners, eccentrics, etc.

I fail to see how a general cap on reproduction is similar to eugenics...

And if my beliefs in what must be done sooner or later lest population continues to grow unrestricted, is the most ghastly you have ever read in your life, then you are a poor historian who hasn't really read much, are you?

Edited December 9, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

I have never heard anything so ghastly as Soul's belief in my life. The Americans and Nazis used to sterilise 'retarded people' in the 1930s. It turns out - a modern reading of the evidence tells us - that some of these people were simply, slow learners, eccentrics, etc.

I fail to see how a general cap on reproduction is similar to eugenics...

And if my beliefs in what must be done sooner or later lest population continues to grow unrestricted, is the most ghastly you have ever read in your life, then you are a poor historian who hasn't really read much, are you?

Oh no you didnt girlfriend!!

[DR DOOM]

There are too many people on the Earth though, I'm with SM on that.

There's far too many of "them" for my liking, if you know what I mean