YESS i've met a realistic man. i have newfound love for you now.Davis you sound too much like me with the selfishness and the biological viewpoints. Inherently, we do need a way for population control to continue. The UN estimates ~9 billion people by 2050, and the carrying capacity for the Earth - adding upon every single factor - isn't too far off from 2050, give or take. Some people say the carrying capacity was already exceeded long ago, it's just taking a while for the effects to occur.
As Steven described, because of this socioeconomic cluster****, we are reporting unnatural birth/death ratios in Africa vs America, for example.
One part of the issue is that people in America who DON'T deserve to live are living and people in Africa who DESERVE to live are dying. I'm communist - I want every country to be equally rationed in food. Considering the amount of food we have available, we would be able to feed all almost-7 billion people.
So, what do we do to keep our population in check?
We can't continue world hunger, since as Davis said, it's immoral for people to starve but completely fine if people are shot.
We can't erupt into a world war or else the threat of nuclear proliferation and destruction is too great.
We can't allow random killing around the world - nobody wants to die.
We can allow birthrate regulation, like in China, but there is too much religious and ideological opposition for it to occur in large scales. I mean, we COULD pull it off, but the countries that tend to need it have the most opposition...
Our only heartfelt solution is the colonization of other planets. It's all we can do. The Earth isn't our final frontier, it isn't our limit. The idea of extraterrestrial settlement hasn't met much opposition either.
As for Machiavelli, just so you know, Nicolo Machiavelli is most famous for his work
The Prince which described political and socioeconomic ideals to a French tyrant of his time. I don't recall what the ideals actually were though.
Can I come to Whobo
