The ethical dilemma with the overpopulation
 

We are way to many on this planet-That's for sure, but it generate some
ethical dilemmas.

1. How many billion is to much ?
This generate the most important question and the most ethical dilemma of them all
2. Who shall be removed-Who shall have the bad luck to be eradicated and who shall have the luck to stay ??

Markus

1. From all what I have red over the past thirty years or so, from oceanography over ecology and geography to futurology and many topics and issues and threads inbetween and from many different people and many different branches, I would form an amalgamised assumption of that this planet, if we treat every human equal regarding living standards and rights to consume, this planet can deal with the garbarge-production of and the ressource-consummation of around maybe 1 to 1.5 billion people, if people should be able to indeed live with a minimum degree of material freedom, instead of just existing while suffering and facing daily bitter fight for survival, food, and health-keeping.

2. Since man is unwilling and also maybe unable to limit his race's growth by himself and intentionally, nature will take care of it herself, by pandemics, natural desasters, wars, increasing lacking food production, mass starvations, etc etc. No need to draw lots.

Ethical dilemma? That term is a conception which is an invention by man, so for him it might be that. But for nature it surely is not. She does not care at all, and can be seen as totally fascist by core and essence. Survival of the group/race/species is evertyhing: Individual fate and suffering means nothing.

Thats a grim realisation. Terrence Malick, in his movie "Tree of Life", therefore lets the narrator from the off tell the audience this: that he was told by the nuns who taught him at school that there are two ways through this life: the way of justice (one could call it causality-centred karma), which is nature's way, and the way of grace/mercy. Which is, I must add, humans' conception: to make this grim life bearable.


Devils and angels, the dark and the light, saints and sinners: we are both, everyone of us.

Nature will handle this for us.


The most important thing is that humanity can't be allowed to spread to other planets.

^ I guess we don't need to intervene to stop this.

Nope. Nature is very good at correcting mistakes. It may take a long time though.

Just make me Thanos and get out of my way. I know which half to make disappear (and it isn't the half you probably think...)

I wonder how arbitrary nature will be, if at all.

If Darwinism holds true, the populations who are the least capable of dealing with whatever situation unrolls will be the most impacted, much as how those who are not taking the roll out of the Covid situation seriously are now having the greatest mortality; in a future, more virulent, situation, one wanders if the reluctance to adequately respond will still hold...




<O>

Thank you for your answers.

I like Skybirds answer especially his answer on question number 2. Because he's right, Nature does not take care. Just see how brutal it is when lions have caught a zebra.

Darwinism-Never crossed my mind. I think it's related to Skybirds second answer.

Platapus answer is also true Nature will regulate our population. How and when no one knows.


Markus

A bloated bureaucracy of exorbitantly salaried professional experts with yearly bonuses would be the only ones who could answer these questions.

They should be at the top of the list to be Thanos'ed...

Only after radical extremists.

So you're saying you should be first on the list... :up: