Human Re-Cycling..?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

Would you ever consider a state-suicide-scheme if guarrenteed cloning were available…?

  • Nope.
  • Yes.
0 voters

I have this crazy plan, a halfway house between Logan’s Run and a second global holocaust.

It’s getting to the point where everyone will realise there are simply far too many of us to come to anything even resembling a sustainable ecological balance.

The solution would be relatively simple, if we were talking about a field of cows. Get out the bolt-gun and reduce the population to a sustainable level.

But I daresay that the “Bolt-gun solution bill” is prolly not gonna get through parliment until it’s already far-far too late.

We all want to live, we all want to breed. We all think we are valuable human beings, however much evidence there may be against this conclusion in many cases.

Human cloning is possible, and perfectable. There will be some probelms with epigenetic factors, and gene-marking during gestation, but I see no reason why these should not be surrmountable.

Very few, outside of the emo generation, would volunteer for suicide in the name of stabilising populations, and few would now, support pre-emptive strikes against third-world/other countries to ‘preserve resources’ and lower pollution.

How about gene-banking…? And guarrenteed cloning for volunteers…? A cap on ‘normal fertilization’ in favour of re-gestating pre-deseased genetic relations…?

ie: Say the government averages the normal enviromental footprint of person X with average lifespan Y. Then adds a capital incentive worth say, half of that to the imediate family of person x, along with guarenteed cloning at some future point… To anyone who volunteers to take ‘early retirenment’ from life…?

Or a set number for any family, which must be preserved, the surplus terminated and gene-banked for future cloning…? Become your own great grand-father etc…?

As the world becomes more and more congested, people are going to die, in enormous numbers, with no choice about the nature of their passing. At least this way, a large part of you stays in the game of life.

Ethics…?

2

Two things:

There is no such thing as an ecological balance. Balance doesn’t exist in the flux of nature. It’s a myth created by environmentalists/evolutionists alike.

But I know what you mean when you use that metaphor, so I won’t bitch and moan.

Have you ever read The Possibility of an Island?

3

It will eventually happen where large masses of people will be (intentionally) killed off due to population demands.

These “victims” will also be designed to submit without resistance. It won’t be much of a moral/ethical problem to kill them all for the greater good.

4

Weelll, okay, loose speaking. How about ‘harmonized exploitation/re-growth ratio’…? Figured against energy transfer ratios across the atmospheric ‘membrane’ ie - useful sunlight in/waste heat out.

A kinda long-term supportable “headcount per square mile” thing.

Sounds good - just ordered it from Amazon.

5

Why not just go the simple route; lift the laws on suicide and strong arm the religions to do the same? I do believe you would have a goodly number of suicides then and murdersuicides(Folks killed and made to look like a suicide). You will clean the gene pool at least. What you propose would probably take money out of peoples pockets in the form of taxes. I really don’t like frivolous tax increases, makes me want to murdersuicide someone. :sunglasses:

6

from http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

from http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en/

That’s a drip in the ocean. The population’s doubled since I was born roughly 40 years ago. And people were saying back then there were too many people.

We need to dispose of more than half the world.

7

I stayed out of this for awhile trying to think through the cloning thing… Then I had to get past the euthenasia issue. You don’t make this easy, Tab.

How do we subvert nature (over-production) and yet not tangle with cultural practices? We haven’t the political will to “tailor” birth control globally. Some cultures simply refuse to give thought to the issues, either out of ignorance (lack of education) or often, religious beliefs. It seems to me that the answer is to develop a relatively fool-proof method of reversible sterilization for both males and females , administered before puberty. This allows societies to maintain all other parameters to reflect what they consider “normal” reproduction. This prevents squabbles over who gets to reproduce since it is a “blanket” prohibition. Each society then is allowed to work out it’s own system of granting reproduction rights with numbers limited to pre-determined assets and resources available. Some years may see little rights given, in years of plenty, more rights granted - BUT always within sustainable resource capacity.

The euthenasia issue: I don’t have any problem with it, as long as it is an individual choice. Perhaps incentives such as transferring reproduction rights to a family member could be used. (one out, one in) In some ways, it could be healthy in that it would reduce the pressure of skewed young/elderly ratios.

I can’t find any reason for cloning. I’m sure it will happen, but if it is controlled by the numbers limit, I suppose some would try it.

Obviously, to initiate such a concept, there would have to be both global agreement and enforcement. The scenario that produces such a possibility isn’t clear. Today, it would be impossible, but a near extinction die-back might just be the impetus to globally consider reproduction “rights” in a new light. We might decide that we can’t afford to be lemmings…

8

The problem I see arising for the “early retirement” program is that it offers only the delusion of one’s self continuing. I mean, sure I’ll be cloned, but it won’t be me that’ll experience new things. It’ll be the shell that is me with a bunch of new sensations and impressions, which is to say that it won’t be me at all.

Going on the assumption that the clone won’t have my memories here, I feel no comfort from the knowledge that there’ll be a clone of me out there sometime, and so I think most will just take their chances with their AR15s. I know I would.

9

We do not need a gun to reduce our population. Deny people food, shelter and medical care unless they can pay for it and raise prices so fewer and fewer people can meet their needs.

Tentative, China has already practiced government controlled birth control. The recent earthquake in China killed many mothers and fathers only child. The government has offered to pay for restoring their fertility but many are now too old to have a child.

And Erlir is absolutely correct. Cloning can only get a physical copy of our bodies, not the experiences and memories that make us who we are.

10

Sure, I understand that we’re not talking about a balance, but about a sustainable environment supporting human life. I’m with you on that one. As with so many redundant metaphors though, ‘ecological balance’ is just one of those uses of language that pisses me off. You know what I’m like.

It should be right up your street. Particularly given your cultural situation (Briton in Turkey, no bestiality jokes please Imp), because the opening chapters are set about a decade in the future and are all about a quasi-racist comedian. Some of the humour very much reminds me of you.

11

Very inefficient - humans are quite resilient animals. Most will live for several years despite such policies. Much quicker to just shoot them in the head.

12

There is going to a desensitization to violence in the next few centuries, so a more “violent” means of controlling the population may very well come into effect.

And people would gladly choose it out of choice and “for the greater good”.

For example, an inefficient male worker could choose to die and be paid for it to protect his wife & children (financially or from the threat of violence).

13

Note to all: Gotta get our time-lines synched here. Some of the meterologist types are taking bets on whether or not anything man-made will be left standing in a hundred years time.

I’ve also heard a stat on the ice-cap being gone by 2013.

14

All predictions are based on knowledge TR.

Most meteorologists don’t know shit…

15

Really? I’ll assume you can back that statement… or is this just your opinion?

16

I quantify a predictable weather report on a 50-50 scale–they are either correct or incorrect based on my personal observation.

Often they are incorrect. It rains when they predict otherwise. It is sunny when they predict otherwise. My conclusion: they don’t know shit.

Knowing entails an extremely high degree of predictability to the upper 99th degree of percentages (99.999999999999999999999999999…%)

P.S. I can back everything up with a statement. It doesn’t mean anything.

17

The prediction about the ice cap and 2013 is that it might disappear temporarily each summer by 2013, and this is hotly contested as a topic by these climatologists. We can’t rely on them to get our timelines married up, because theirs aren’t married up.

18

I imagine that climate change isn’t going to happen as quickly as predicted, but it will still be “fast” nonetheless. What we can see from the climate community is that they really don’t know what the fuck is going on…

The don’t understand the formonology behind weather patterns yet…

19

Their greatest problem is that their climate models don’t take into account Tesla machines.

Hilarious, given their whole subject is human impact on weather/climate, that they’d miss this. Well, not hilarious, since it means we’re being systematically deceived. But sorta hilarious.

20

Disinformation has been a successful propaganda campaign, but it’s power is limited in its capacity to reason and anticipate pure thought.

In other words, the “people in charge” already know that climate change is being spurred by humanity’s socio-industrial complex. It’s an easy dot to connect. That’s not the real problem.

The real problem is this & this:

What the fuck is going onnnn!?!?

What the fuck are we going to doooo!?!?