BuzzerBeater Forums

What, you don't think its likely that the world governments will conspire to execute 6 billion people?

You are right, sharing is how we should go. I am very much in favour of no one owning any property personally, and everyone having equal wealth. Sort of in a communism type state.

100 billion people though? I am not convinced that we have enough resources to support such a high population and still allow people to have a comfortable living style. There simply isn't enough water, or space, or even food to support that many people.

We have doubled the human population in the last 50 years. What is going to happen 50 years from now? Or 100 years?

You are right though, systems come and go. But humans are greedy. They won't ever want to share.

The US, the UK, Canada, Germany and many other nations have already forced sterilisation upon people in the past. No doubt it will happen again. If we want to take Yoda's line of reasoning to support this: History will repeat itself.

China enacted the one child policy.

Eugenics will happen.

Last edited by Naker Virus at 10/1/2012 6:22:04 AM

That wasn't an idea, that was more dribble. Surely you can't actually believe any of the stuff you've posted to be true?

If you believe any of your earlier rubbish, you're living in a fantasy land, hiding behind hypotheticals that you seem to think make you look intelligent. There's nothing intelligent about anything you've posted, so get down off your high horse, get out of your glass house and try living in the real world, instead of being a condescending and sanctimonious idiot.

It was a hypothetical to show that a girl's life isn't worth more than the life of the millions of cancer patients. It is a simple example I was giving to show that if a situation arises where one life can be sacrificed to provide a benefit to many people, then it should be done. This is the reasoning behind the death penalty. If one innocent person has to die to ensure that thousands of murderers and rapists die as well, then it is an acceptable loss. The army takes into account acceptable losses when making battle plans. Presidents consider the consequences of their actions, or inactions, and how many people will die when making decisions. You can't save everyone. The centre for disease control must suggest evacuation plans in the case of a highly contagious disease, and sometimes they have to accept that they leave people behind to save others. Quarantines are another such example where you have to contain all the people in a building in the event of an outbreak. You might be putting those people's lives in danger by keeping them in the quarantine zone, but you are saving the other members of society. If you think that there is never a circumstance when an innocent person has to be sacrificed then it is you that is living in the fantasy world.

Because Communism has been so effective before?

Communism is great in theory. Doesn't work in practice because people are selfish and greedy. But imagine if everyone had the same amount of money, everyone had access to all the food that they needed, access to free education, free health care, free everything. Life would be awesome.

Why don't you even try to provide one reason why an idea is bad? Is it because you can't? All you do is spout dribble, as you would call it, and hurl insults. I don't care if you want to spew insults, but it just shows you are incapable of discussing issues with any intellectual substance in them. Use reason, not emotion, to explain why an idea is wrong.

There's nothing intelligent about anything you've posted, so get down off your high horse, get out of your glass house and try living in the real world, instead of being a condescending and sanctimonious idiot

Again I know I shouldn't do this, but, I haven't seen a single counter-arguement from yourself, they are all "you are an idiot" posts. This whole thread would probably have died days ago, and spared the BB community if it wasn't for your repetitive inane comments .....

Dunno whether its that great in theory.

Simple economics, resources are scarce. You can't just give everyone free everything, because you'd run out of stuff pretty quickly

And if everyone has the same money as everyone else, what incentive do I have to go be a good doctor, lawyer, whatever. I'd just bludge and freeload. Society would fall down pretty quickly.

Sounds pretty crap to me.

Simple economics, resources are scarce.

lol this is why it is hard to argue against multiple opposing points. You say resources are scarce. Koop says we have enough resources for 100 billion people :P

And if everyone has the same money as everyone else, what incentive do I have to go be a good doctor, lawyer, whatever.

The incentive should come from passion. I would still happily be a doctor or lawyer because I found the subjects in those fields interesting when I studied them. People with passion for sports would still play I think. A lot of people do things with their life because they are passionate, despite the fact that their passion won't make them rich.

Yes, I realise that a lot of people would bludge and freeload. :P But that's why I said it is good in theory, but doesn't work in practice. Imagine if everyone went and worked instead of bludged and freeloaded. They could work in fields they are passionate about without worrying about financial obligations like whether they will meet their rent this week or not. Life would be awesome :D Perhaps you could simply make it a requirement to work in order to get the free stuff. You can work in any field you want, but you still need to meet the quota. I think that could drive people to work.