I'm well aware of the state of the world, and where trends are going, as well as what we can expect from upcoming technologies, or even do with current technology if we could be bothered. That wasn't my point at all.
My point was that it's not okay to be coy when supporting mass murder. If you can't say it outright, without dressing it up in flowery phrases, maybe you should rethink. So go on, be explicit: "I want most of the world to die, because my life would be better if they weren't in my way. I'm better than them." I assume you're also okay with someone else thinking they're better than you, and killing you and your family?
Maybe it's even morally right. Historically though, people with such ideas have turned out to be less than ideal role models.
That aside, spending resources on encouraging a one-child-per-family program in the parts of the world that can't manage themselves, and withholding aid to those that declined, would avoid all the morally dubious slaughter, and get some of the same results.
That' s a good question. My answer is we should care because we're better than that. If we can be callous about genocide for any reason, are we really worth preserving ourselves?
Also the overall description of situation is a false dichotomy. There are more options than that. Options for the elite, of course - you and I can do nothing except respond according to our nature.
I'm well aware of the state of the world, and where trends are going, as well as what we can expect from upcoming technologies, or even do with current technology if we could be bothered. That wasn't my point at all.
My point was that it's not okay to be coy when supporting mass murder. If you can't say it outright, without dressing it up in flowery phrases, maybe you should rethink. So go on, be explicit: "I want most of the world to die, because my life would be better if they weren't in my way. I'm better than them." I assume you're also okay with someone else thinking they're better than you, and killing you and your family?
Maybe it's even morally right. Historically though, people with such ideas have turned out to be less than ideal role models.
That aside, spending resources on encouraging a one-child-per-family program in the parts of the world that can't manage themselves, and withholding aid to those that declined, would avoid all the morally dubious slaughter, and get some of the same results.
That' s a good question. My answer is we should care because we're better than that. If we can be callous about genocide for any reason, are we really worth preserving ourselves?
Also the overall description of situation is a false dichotomy. There are more options than that. Options for the elite, of course - you and I can do nothing except respond according to our nature.