Or we can do another picture as gross. The average family size in most of the third world is? Family size where they have multiple wives as young as the age they can get pregnant. Having no opportunity except to rapidly populate. How do these people live. Crime, fatality, no employment, disease.
At least fatso has food and medicine and the money to buy it.
Not condoning either except you're attacking one type of vermin instead of both. Obviously technology has created his problem. Although without it. It is no better either. But by providing it to the third world it had exploded their populations into even greater problems.
You're also under the assumption that even if you find some planetary Utopia, human nature won't consume. It won't shit out humans, humans getting fatter and greedier.
Let's put up a peak strongman shall we like the Rock, how much food does he eat? Hahaha. How much crap does he need to train. Hahaha. Is there any difference. One is healthier? They're both alive eating almost the same amount. Except one needs even more stuff to eat better.
I have this thought more than I care to admit. What if the criteria for being allowed to exist was that you are a productive member of society? I'd say that 70% of the US population would be gone.
a) reality represents ongoing value; those within the temporary evaluation thereof aka perceiving (evaluation) within perceivable (value).
b) those who ignore perceivable everything (reality) for suggested nothing (fiction) are willingly shirking response-ability (choice).
c) CONTRIBUTE, verb - "to give or grant in common with others"...free will of choice is being given/granted in common with others by a balance based system. To be represents the contribution within all that is; was and will be.
full of useless
To be alive, while being moved from inception towards death, implies being "used"; while "reusing" what's offered.
stupid
STUPID, adjective [Latin , to be stupefied, properly to stop. See Stop.] - "insensible; senseless"...sensing represents the response to being moved; therefore the living within the process of dying can't be stupid...since they're in motion aka form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Before one can choose to want to fight for others; one needs to breathe as to sustain self. Therefore...others tempt one to ignore self.
Imagine paying taxes for this to live.
a) suggested TAX, noun - "a sum imposed" tempts one to ignore being put (impose) apart (partial of whole); for believing to be SUM, noun (Latin simul) - " together".
b) choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law tempts those consenting to submit to the choices of others to also blame others for the consequences of ignorance.
Imagine sharing a world...
a) SHARE, noun - "a part"; hence one being able to perceive (partial) all perceivable (whole).
b) the few suggest the sleight of hand "sharing is caring" aka SHARING (being partial) is CARING (being concerned aka separated; divided).
Imagine not being...
How could one being within everything imagine to be within nothing...unless ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested)?
Or we can do another picture as gross. The average family size in most of the third world is? Family size where they have multiple wives as young as the age they can get pregnant. Having no opportunity except to rapidly populate. How do these people live. Crime, fatality, no employment, disease.
At least fatso has food and medicine and the money to buy it.
Not condoning either except you're attacking one type of vermin instead of both. Obviously technology has created his problem. Although without it. It is no better either. But by providing it to the third world it had exploded their populations into even greater problems.
You're also under the assumption that even if you find some planetary Utopia, human nature won't consume. It won't shit out humans, humans getting fatter and greedier.
Let's put up a peak strongman shall we like the Rock, how much food does he eat? Hahaha. How much crap does he need to train. Hahaha. Is there any difference. One is healthier? They're both alive eating almost the same amount. Except one needs even more stuff to eat better.
I have this thought more than I care to admit. What if the criteria for being allowed to exist was that you are a productive member of society? I'd say that 70% of the US population would be gone.
This is my dad. Especially after my mom died. Lol. So sad, I just can’t snap him out of it. Doesn’t smoke, but everything else is accurate.
a) reality represents ongoing value; those within the temporary evaluation thereof aka perceiving (evaluation) within perceivable (value).
b) those who ignore perceivable everything (reality) for suggested nothing (fiction) are willingly shirking response-ability (choice).
c) CONTRIBUTE, verb - "to give or grant in common with others"...free will of choice is being given/granted in common with others by a balance based system. To be represents the contribution within all that is; was and will be.
To be alive, while being moved from inception towards death, implies being "used"; while "reusing" what's offered.
STUPID, adjective [Latin , to be stupefied, properly to stop. See Stop.] - "insensible; senseless"...sensing represents the response to being moved; therefore the living within the process of dying can't be stupid...since they're in motion aka form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
I just speculated the same on another thread. Haha!
Regardless of whether it benefits society as a whole, it's still unethical to kill things that you don't intend to eat.
Before one can choose to want to fight for others; one needs to breathe as to sustain self. Therefore...others tempt one to ignore self.
a) suggested TAX, noun - "a sum imposed" tempts one to ignore being put (impose) apart (partial of whole); for believing to be SUM, noun (Latin simul) - " together".
b) choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law tempts those consenting to submit to the choices of others to also blame others for the consequences of ignorance.
a) SHARE, noun - "a part"; hence one being able to perceive (partial) all perceivable (whole).
b) the few suggest the sleight of hand "sharing is caring" aka SHARING (being partial) is CARING (being concerned aka separated; divided).
How could one being within everything imagine to be within nothing...unless ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested)?