you might not want to encourage people whose culture and economic state leads them to reproduce less, to stop reproducing completely. Thus leaving the world to people who have no such reproductive limits.
you compound zaitcev's absurdity with further absurdity. reason with me here: it doesn't make the more-rapidly-reproducing people reproduce more if we go away. the issue is plainly that there are too many people. making fewer people, even if they are the ones whose breeding rates are lower, still makes for fewer people overall. now. in the future. whatever.
Hehe, like I need to respond to ad hominem word-association arguments like "hard core creepy" and "free market cheerleader." Propaganda technique is just silly. ;)grep -i '\(power-seeker\|marxist\|silly\|religious\)' lilo-diary.txt > pot-calling-kettle-black.txt
it turns out that the people who provide the choices are, again, small groups of people who enjoy wielding power. Just the opposite of the sort of people who can be trusted with power. I'm generally in favor of educating people to think for themselves and letting them do so. The results may not agree with my prejudices, but they should be a lot more stable and useful than those of the current system, in which the voter is treated like a child.
just to clarify, so I know exactly what argument you're proposing in amongst the whitticisms and generalizations: do you think we should have any laws? any legal system, law enforcement, legislature, judiciary?
Oh, yes, extinction. All of those species do seem to be extinct, along with the many other species you'll find in the billions of years of fossil record.
no, not billions of years of fossil records. dozens of years of current watching. watching habitats get re-allocated to human use, and everything that lived there vanishing, and knowing we're the cause.