Thread replies: 22
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
Seeing as you are reading this post I will assume you are from a first world country, and if not then I will assume you are at least better off then many of your fellow countrymen. So my questions to you is do we have a moral obligation to fix the vast inequalities between the first world and the third world? Would attempting to do so be a useless endeavor and only hurt us in the long run or would ignoring it lead to the collective destruction of civilization as a whole?
>inb4 autists talking the usage of 1st/3rd originating from the cold war
Yes I know.
>>
No. Only the strong survive. To end poverty, the impoverish should stop breeding.
>>
It would likely be conducive to our wellbeing over the long term not to have large amounts of the planet ruled by dictatorships or failed states.
For one thing, we consume shit from like every part of the planet.
>>
File: IMG_0174.jpg (30KB, 578x420px) Image search:
[Google]
30KB, 578x420px
>>2298214
The rich get richer and the poor get– children.
>>
>>2298214
At the rate the third world is currently going that does not seem likely. Should we play a more active role in stopping there unchecked growth, or will they be able to dig themselves out of their poverty?
>>2298215
Good point, didn't think of the dictatorship part. The middle east is a good example of this. If they are not being ruled by a religious dictator they are sending over swaths of refugees and putting a strain on our nations. Aiding in their development into a modern civilization could only be beneficial for us, no? What happens though if we see a repeat of what has happened in the past where our involvement only breeds resentment bigger failed states? Would not our efforts have been in vain?
>>2298237
Truth. Is population control the only feasible option? Is it morally wrong? China is in trouble now apparently because of their attempts of population control.
>>
File: IMG_0061.jpg (488KB, 1280x1075px) Image search:
[Google]
488KB, 1280x1075px
>>2298254
>Truth. Is population control the only feasible option? Is it morally wrong? China is in trouble now apparently because of their attempts of population control.
The ius trium liberorum, meaning “the right of three children” in Latin,[1] was a privilege rewarded to Roman citizens who had borne at least three children or freedmen who had borne at least four children.[2] It was a direct result of the Lex Iulia and the Lex Papia Poppaea, bodies of legislation introduced by Augustus in 18 BCE and 9 CE, respectively.[3] These bodies of legislation were conceived to grow the dwindling population of the Roman upper classes. The intent of the jus trium liberorum has caused scholars to interpret it as eugenic legislation.[4]
>>
>>2298276
So do not encourage a sweeping policy but instead encourage the rich and smart to have children and discourage the poor form having children. Would modern society ever adopt such an idea though? Are we too late? What effects did this type of policy have on the Romans?
>>
>do we have a moral obligation to fix the vast inequalities between the first world and the third world?
Yes
>would ignoring it lead to the collective destruction of civilization as a whole?
Because this.
>>
>>2298306
Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
>>
>>2298350
So is it for the benefit of our fellow man or for our benefit by ensuring our security? I guess it does not matter in the end though if it is a win-win. Either way history will remember us as benevolent saviors if we were to succeed.
>>2298365
Calm down Ayn Rand. Although I can see her point. Maybe if presented in the right way eugenic legislation could be universally adopted by modern society. One would just have to show how "barbaric" the alternative is and modern progressive society would eat it up.
>>
>>2298210
If you know you are wrong, why not use developed world? The autist is you, being knowingly wrong but stubbornly refusing to change.
>>
>>2298443
>wrong
For all intents and purposes 1st world = developed nations and 3rd world = underdeveloped nations. Even in academia it is used so. It does not really matter to me which is used, it is just out of habit that I use 1st/3rd world. It was only after going back and proof reading my post did I remember how upset some people on here get about it. I knew my post would get across the same so I did not feel the need to change it but still felt a disclaimer was necessary to prevent an autists from derailing the discussion. Obviously I was mistaken. But if it tickles you so I will use developed world vs undeveloped world for the remainder of this thread. :^)
>>
I think advancing science and colonizing mars would be a greater moral goal.
Do you believe I should be forced to dedicate my economic surplus towards alleviating poverty instead?
>>
>>2298210
Yes, but no. Poverty is bad, but everyone cannot be rich. Secondly, there are too many Chinese and Indians.
>>
From an economic point of view third world countries becoming wealthier is an amazing thing, this is because they have a larger consumption elasticity than developed countries, so they can increase production and gdp way more.
>>
>>2298210
People in 3rd world countries need to have less children.
Less people = less competition for resources = enough for everyone.
>>
>>
Hello Peter Singer and your bag of amazing spooks!
>>
>>2298214
>To end poverty, the impoverish should stop breeding.
jesus fucking christ, the things we read here...
>>
>>2298254
China is in trouble because the faggots were aborting females for some retarded tradition. Now they have millions and millions of >no gf desperate guys.
>>
>>2298210
Would actually like for Africa to become somewhat more prosperous, most diverse continent best wildlife etc.
Middle East is just a desert full of hot heads, should be swallowed
>>
File: developing.jpg (68KB, 530x317px) Image search:
[Google]
68KB, 530x317px
>>2300520
>Peter Singer
Who? Care to explain?
>>2301358
They were aborting all of the females because the pressure of the one child policy and their traditions. But I agree with you, their are a bunch of Chinese robots now with no purpose and its all a mess.
>>2301547
Yes Africa is an amazing continent biologically, geographically and historically. And the Africans (actual people from Africa) that I have met have been some of the coolest hardest working individuals I have met. It would be nice to see Africa become a more developed continent.
Thread posts: 22
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6