Archived Topics

[ home   |  weekly discussion   |  topic contents ]

Topic 1: Are the poor worth saving? 
 

The poor vs. overpopulation:  This is a difficult topic because I see no solution that is either Christian or equitable.  It is a problem that we, as a world population, brought upon ourselves.  Overpopulation, especially of those who cannot contribute to the welfare of society, is the world's greatest problem.  Not surprisingly, however, I have talked to many and found no one who is concerned or has even considered its consequences.  I solute the Chinese for at least recognizing that a problem exists (or will exist if not controlled).  

Please remember: [1] These are discussion topics and anything goes.  [2] I do not necessarily support (or at least savor) some of the possible conclusions.  [3] I have no "nice" solution for the future regarding this problem although I have a pretty good idea about what will (must) happen.  .     

Background:  The single most important driving force behind all living creatures is to stay alive.  The next most important force is maintenance of  the species.  The result is that an organism will multiply until regulated by some factor beyond its control, usually lack of food, climate change, or predation.  A major factor that plays into all of this is that these animals live solely on replaceable elements generated by the environment in which they live.  That is, they require no oil, no minerals, etc.     

Homo sapiens differ from the above only in the fact that they can think.  Because of this they could avoid most of the conditions that normally regulate population growth.  With the ability to think, the modern homo sapiens have also learned to appreciate (i.e., want) things that are not naturally, or easily, replaceable (for example oil, minerals, etc).     

When?  (a) The time scale to reach a critical level of overpopulation is not far away in terms of lifetimes, if it has not already been reached.  (b) The point is that it will happen in spite of what all of you pundits out there think.  There is no shortage of good scientific evidence (as well as simple logic) to support this scenario.     

What does all  of this mean?  (a) A mass extinction of homo sapiens will occur simply because there is no alternative.  (b) This extinction will most likely be a series of natural events (most likely disease).  (c) It is far less likely that populations will be stabilized by law since most people will not admit to the problem or are not willing to set rules that would limit population growth.    

Who will die?  (a) Those who cannot defend themselves.  (b) Those who cannot contribute to the welfare of society, for example the uneducated.  (c) Most likely the poor and underprivileged.  Rhetorical Question:  If death is inevitable, then why support those who are going to die anyway?  

What are some of the economics that will impinge this subject?  (a) The cost of maintaining a life is rising exponentially.  For example, when I was a baby it took less than  $500.00 to equip a doctor's office.  When a patient exhausted the benefits of this technology, he/she died.  Now it takes huge quantities of equipment, medicines and specialists to service a patient and this will continuing to rise so long as there are people out there trying to prolong life (as well as make money by so doing).  (b) Society is shifting rapidly toward high technology with the result that an uneducated population (which is most of the world's peoples) will have little work-related potential and will become a burden to those who could help them (but will likely choose not to do so). 

The Answer(s)?  (a) The fundamental problem with the poor and underprivileged (i.e., burdensome) is their numbers.  We simply cannot, or will not, support all of those in need.  (b) The logical answer is, therefore, to control population growth by not allowing it to happen.  (c) Other than that I cannot imagine a solution that would be either Christian or compassionate -- and no one would listen even if I did.  (d) Then again, for those of us with even minimal means, the answer is simple as indicated below.   

  Are the poor worth saving?  (a) Yes because we need the slave labor to make all of the neat things we like to buy at a price we can afford. (b) Otherwise no.

[ home   |  weekly discussion   |  topic contents ]