Scrumpmonkey said:I thought you were being deliberately over the top but you obviously believe your points to make such lengthy posts about them. This idea is part of the pantheon of 'Eugenics', an idea that had some traction until World War 2, when the reality of of the extermination of masses of people became all too real.Therumancer said:At the end of the day I believe for humanity to survive 90% of the population needs to die, and the remaining 10% need to be assembled into a single nation/culture with tight population regulation.
On topic. Yes. An area can flood that hasn't flooded before. If you think we shouldn't then you are an idiot. A heartless, argumentative idiot. Its like someone having a house fire and then saying "Well you voluntarily choose to live a house that contains wood, it's your own fault for not having an asbestos house" or someone being hit by a car that mounted the pavement and saying "Well you chose to walk down the street, it's your own fault for leaving the house".
Okay, now go back and actually READ all of the posts I've written in detail. This is why I get so curt with people. Yes I am not a great writer, but I cover a lot of different things to head off various points ahead of time. You really should do this when coming in relatively late to a conversation and trying to "make points".
For those who follow my stuff (there are a few) this is also why after a while in threads why I simply "declare victory" after a while and move on, newcomers saying I didn't address points that had already been handled hours if not days ago, or are irrelevant to what I actually said, frequently get ignored for a reason.
At any rate you are apparently confusing two entirely different points as I have said nothing racist or eugenically based (ie genetic inferiority) at all. I have said:
1. It's hard to feel sympathy for people that keep doing the same stupid things over and over again and then expect other people to dig them out. In this case when I'm talking about "Darwin" it's less genetics as much as letting idiots reap what they sow when countries like the US are already in massive amounts of debt. Charity is nice when you can do it, but it's not an entitlement, and really there is a certain point where you just flat out have to admit an outside force is not going to solve the problems in the region. Either the people there are going to sort it out on their own, or they are going to die. It's more akin to other civilizations that have faded away into history (as might happen to all of us in the first world some day) than any specific eugenic argument. The first world should not be a life support system for third world people unwilling or unable to help themselves and who keep doing the same stupid things.
A eugenics or racist argument (which I would make if I believe it) would be to say "hah, well the people in SE Asia are inferior to us white folks and this proves it. Due to their own inherent stupidity they keep killing themselves, and really if we let them die out it will make a stronger human race".
On a lot of levels my argument is exactly the opposite, as I am probably one of the least racist people you'll ever meet, I tend to irritate those with very liberal sentiments (who are themselves kind of racist) by realizing I can expect the same things of other humans that I can expect of my own people. I do not expect miracles though mind you, picking yourself up is a long, slow, process. I do however expect the people in the regions that we help to also try and help themselves, and not keep doing the same stupid things, which has rendered me unsympathetic in a lot of these cases. Indeed the liberals who come running out basically argueing that these people *can't* be expected to help themselves are actually making a far more bigoted argument since their entire position is based on presumed inferiority that requires someone else to pretty much take care of them and prop them up. This can lead into a lot of other arguements though and would get off topic. I'm writing this (which is pretty much what I've said before) to explain this particular point.
2. The entire point about 90% of the people on the planet needing to die is entirely separate from the above. It has to do with overpopulation and resource depletion rather than racism, and as I have explained before isn't specifically directed at a "type" of people. Any serious population reduction that would do the job would by definition be hitting the first world, which is densely overpopulated itself in a lot of areas, as much as anywhere else.
I merely pointed this out because this dark and depressing reality (which I believe at least), means that on a fundamental level I think running out to save lots and lots of people is kind of pointless when you consider if humanity is to survive we pretty much need to get rid of 90% of the people out there.
Explaining this in more detail would get far afield of the topic, and as I mentioned earlier, if you want more details on it you can check out some of my threads. When I'm already writing huge posts going off about the need for space travel, why we need a global government for that to happen, resource depletion and the time table before we reduce resources below the level to ever save ourselves with space travel, and other things get well off topic. I go into this in more detail and then someone else will come along and wonder why the heck we're talking about why you can't have more than one nation competing over things like in-system asteroid mining (which is one of the first things we'd have to do) and start jumping on my points there totally not getting the conversation and what's actually going on and how it could possibly relate to refugees.
Indeed I pointed it out largely by way of making the point that my attitudes are NOT racist, I'm just a guy that realizes reality sucks, and it's going to suck a lot worse if things are ever going to get better for anyone down the road.