Replies

I do not see the killing of severe defectives wrong. On the contrary, I believe forcing parents and doctors to take extreme measures to prolong a life that will never amount to a functional human being to be truly evil.

I don't disagree. If you look at it from an evolutionary point of view, spending millions of dollars trying to save people who were never meant to live, and then they have children then you spend billions saving their kids, obviously you've removed natural selection from the equation, and the gene pool is going to take a drastic turn for the worse.

But you might want to consider that the average woman in Europe has only 1.4 kids, when you need 2.1 to break even. In Russia there are 225 abortions every 100 live births. Is Western Civilization committing suicide by killing its own children? How does it fit into your system of fitness, that a productive, educated, and intelligent nation like the US kills off a vast majority of its potential children with abortion, or never has them at all due to birth control. Meanwhile, third world nations that have never produced anything of note, have 6-8 children per woman, and begin mass immigration into Western countries.

Birth Control + Abortion = Suicide Pill of the West. Are you implying that Western Civilization that singlehanded invented the entire modern era is somehow unfit and that their extinction due to the current demographic crisis is a good thing?

oh, well, this is a purely artificial problem, one stemming from the facts that western culture is basically too eager to be nice, as well as, of course, the various maneuvers of the Cold War. It could be cured in one or two generations by the simple expedient of stopping ALL medical and food assistance to "developing" nations. The same logic which argues against taking extreme measures to prolong the agony of a single life that was not meant to survive can be expanded to apply to non-functional cultures.
I am in favor of allowing the problem of overpopulation to solve itself. It is an ugly way to think, I admit, but it is more defensible than prolonging and extending the problem over further generations. It just doesn't produce a false "feel good" glow the way "feeding the hungry" does.
I dunno about you, but I am not in need of a "feel good" glow.