Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:No / no.

Thank God for that!

demonfork wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:No / no.

Thank God for that!

I know. My children would kick your children's ass, so you're lucky.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Personally I am an avid believer in VHEMT

http://www.vhemt.org

Why?

+1

i just clicked on the site, saw the front page, thought it was a joke. then i came back to CC and realized it was probably a serious idea. this group has heard of suicide right? or do they want everyone else to die and they stay alive?

i have a 4 year old son...no way to describe how awesome it is to have a kid.

and kids say the funniest things...i would say they are free entertainment but i think everyone knows how expensive they can be so "free" does not quite fit in there.

tonight my wife made an amazing turkey casserole for dinner. he says he is hungry and runs for the table at dinner time. my wife puts the casserole down on the table and the first thing he says is "I can't eat that, I don't want to get sick. Mom, that smells really bad!" She also made some quinoa noodles..the casserole goes over the noodles. he ate noodles for dinner and kept telling me I was going to be sick tomorrow since i was eating her awesome casserole.

I would say at least 5 days a week he says something to me that puts a smile on my face for most of the day. I try to remember what my life was like before he was born and I have a hard time remembering. I do know i used to sleep a lot more....and i was able to use the bathroom in my own house without locking the door...and i had no idea there were so many cartoons on netflix.

Everyone should be restricted to one child only, except in special circumstances. This is a very good idea and would help deal with the issue of over-population.

ChrisPond wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Personally I am an avid believer in VHEMT

http://www.vhemt.org

Why?

+1

i just clicked on the site, saw the front page, thought it was a joke. then i came back to CC and realized it was probably a serious idea. this group has heard of suicide right? or do they want everyone else to die and they stay alive?

They want everyone else to die, which is why it's not only a stupid idea, it's hypocritical at best. I hate hypocrits.

mrswdk wrote:Everyone should be restricted to one child only, except in special circumstances. This is a very good idea and would help deal with the issue of over-population.

I think we should limit population control to third world countries, don't you?

thegreekdog wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Personally I am an avid believer in VHEMT

http://www.vhemt.org

Why?

+1

i just clicked on the site, saw the front page, thought it was a joke. then i came back to CC and realized it was probably a serious idea. this group has heard of suicide right? or do they want everyone else to die and they stay alive?

They want everyone else to die, which is why it's not only a stupid idea, it's hypocritical at best. I hate hypocrits.

Agreed. They fall victim to a performative contradiction.

"There's too many humans!"

Okay, you have the power to reduce the world's population by 1. Go ahead, sir.

My track record for annoying the Anti-Humans is 100% with that argument.

mrswdk wrote:Everyone should be restricted to one child only, except in special circumstances. This is a very good idea and would help deal with the issue of over-population.

Or, if you're worried about over-population, give foreign aid to developing countries. If we can trust the correlation, when they become industrialized their people will have fewer children.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Agreed. They fall victim to a performative contradiction.

"There's too many humans!"

Okay, you have the power to reduce the world's population by 1. Go ahead, sir.

My track record for annoying the Anti-Humans is 100% with that argument.

No more of a performative contradiction than Al Gore flying in jets between his speeches. If, by staying alive, you can convince more people to kill themselves/not have children than you could have by killing yourself (which seems likely, if you're any good at it), then you shouldn't off yourself.

Having children is the greatest act of cruelty.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Having children is the greatest act of cruelty.

-TG

Luckily in one of many alternate universes, we aren't having them. But then in others, we are. Junk.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Having children is the greatest act of cruelty.

-TG

Luckily in one of many alternate universes, we aren't having them. But then in others, we are. Junk.


--Andy

"Having them" as in A Modest Proposal?

Anarkistsdream wrote:My wife and I have been married for five years... Neither of us ever want biological children, and have decided that, when we get older and are very stable ourselves, we would like to adopt...

Personally I am an avid believer in VHEMT

http://www.vhemt.org

How will this not just lead to the next generation being more genetically like the people who want to have kids?

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Agreed. They fall victim to a performative contradiction.

"There's too many humans!"

Okay, you have the power to reduce the world's population by 1. Go ahead, sir.

My track record for annoying the Anti-Humans is 100% with that argument.

No more of a performative contradiction than Al Gore flying in jets between his speeches. If, by staying alive, you can convince more people to kill themselves/not have children than you could have by killing yourself (which seems likely, if you're any good at it), then you shouldn't off yourself.

Therefore, a suicide cult is the ideal model for the Anti-Humans. The Anti-Humans would have to sincerely concur with the message of such a group. Weird, right?

On a more serious note, we're assuming that they know the optimal trade-off for causing pollution for themselves (and for everyone else). In other words, I could estimate the value of my anti-pollution message as Very High, thus I could justify causing all sorts of pollution. It's like 'the Party knows best' logic.

notyou2 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Having children is the greatest act of cruelty.

-TG

Luckily in one of many alternate universes, we aren't having them. But then in others, we are. Junk.


--Andy

"Having them" as in A Modest Proposal?

Doesn't everyone have one with their cup of coffee?


--Andy

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

ChrisPond wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Personally I am an avid believer in VHEMT

http://www.vhemt.org

Why?

+1

i just clicked on the site, saw the front page, thought it was a joke. then i came back to CC and realized it was probably a serious idea. this group has heard of suicide right? or do they want everyone else to die and they stay alive?

They want everyone else to die, which is why it's not only a stupid idea, it's hypocritical at best. I hate hypocrits.

Agreed. They fall victim to a performative contradiction.

"There's too many humans!"

Okay, you have the power to reduce the world's population by 1. Go ahead, sir.

My track record for annoying the Anti-Humans is 100% with that argument.

Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

Why do they want everyone to stop reproducing again?

thegreekdog wrote:Why do they want everyone to stop reproducing again?

Everyone is just code for AoG.


--Andy

tkr4lf wrote:Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Pardon?!?

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

Malthusian Cycle.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

Malthusian Cycle.

I don't think Malthus envisioned the existence of nuclear weapons when he originally wrote. Those have the possibility of fundamentally changing the nature of the population catastrophe (though I don't think there's a solid answer on how badly global nuclear winter would hurt us collectively).

One caveat to the above answer: it's possible we'll get humans off Earth before any major resource shortage hits. But even if we do, doesn't seem likely that we'll stop procreating here.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Obviously none of you three actually read the information on that site. They don't want anybody to die, much less to off themselves. They just want people to stop reproducing. There's a huge difference in those two things.

They even go into the reasons why suicide and/or mass murder, etc., are far inferior ways of reducing the human population compared to reduced reproduction.

But I suppose it's easier to argue against something they aren't even advocating than to actually read what they have to say and argue against that. What's that called again? A straw man?

I love straw man arguments! Stop trying to bring reason into this debate!

Anyway, the concern about "too many humans" doesn't make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. The planet doesn't have infinite resources, and a given resource is not infinitely substitutable. We just have no clue how to robustly calculate how many humans is too many.

"Therefore, there's too many humans."
"Begin voluntary efforts to cease reproduction."

How do those conclusions follow? How does that make sense?


(Sure, the optimal amount isn't infinity, and there are constraints (on this Earth and the universe) to some unknown degree, but these are obvious and uninteresting points).