you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Bill Gates the eugenist?

The super billionaire who wants to reduce populations with vaccines?

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Excellent proof by assertion. Ten out of ten, would recommend.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

[–]AuroraRaven 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's a dead link.

Let's sat I believe your assertion, what is wrong with reducing population growth?

We need to focus on improving life for the people who are already alive. Population will cap at 10 billion because after that we can't sustainably support anymore, and people will starve, more than they already are anyway.

I'd much rather we prevent people from being born in the first place, than let them be born, only to die sick and hungry.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I though population capped at 10 billion naturally without any more people starving than are already starving? Like we'll bring the standard of living up a bit, populate Montana, and it's all good.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That's what many of the projections are suggesting, yes. Of course, there might be a highly-contagious meme that changes that, but it seems that that's what's probably going to happen.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you have any sources for those claims?

The malthusians have gotten it wrong every time.

Also, the link is fixed. Thanks for the heads up.