Happy Early July 4th (or current)

[shubla]

That is just 0,0002 percent of the population.
There are many more people not getting killed as compared to the wast majority. Everyone need to chill.

So you think its okay to kill people without valid reason only if we stay in small enough percentages?

[dageir]

Depends on the ethical stance you choose to take.

From traditional ethical standpoint killing other people is bad. Yet some nations actually kill their own and other nations inhabitants for various reasons. (Im not saying we should go from what is the usual conduct to what ought to be done).
From an utilitarian point of view reducing or keeping the population numbers stable might be beneficial for the majority of the population.
The best way to acheive this is to prevent people from being born. We can see that the population numbers are falling or stabilizing in developed parts of the
world. Reasons for this is the awareness of contraception, higher education levels mean women choose to work/have a career instead of being home making/caring for children.
In my opinion its imperrative to educate women. Men are not so important to educate since they can reproduce indefinetively and are not hindered in their career from having many children (traditionally).
The limiting reproductive factor are the women.

That being said what should be done with the overpopulation that is already established? Should the 1st world lower their standards of living to allow for more resources to the poor?
That would be nice, but not very realistic. An attempt to openly reduce the standard of living would lead to regime change and adjustment of the course (Brexit).

I digress, but could a critical global situation (environment/resources) make it necessary to reduce the population for the benefit of humanity? Would you sacrifice humanity for the
ethical principle "thou shalt not kill?" Obviously this would not be without tough priorities.

[pedorlee]

Depends on the ethical stance you choose to take.

From traditional ethical standpoint killing other people is bad. Yet some nations actually kill their own and other nations inhabitants for various reasons. (Im not saying we should go from what is the usual conduct to what ought to be done).
From an utilitarian point of view reducing or keeping the population numbers stable might be beneficial for the majority of the population.
The best way to acheive this is to prevent people from being born. We can see that the population numbers are falling or stabilizing in developed parts of the
world. Reasons for this is the awareness of contraception, higher education levels mean women choose to work/have a career instead of being home making/caring for children.
In my opinion its imperrative to educate women. Men are not so important to educate since they can reproduce indefinetively and are not hindered in their career from having many children (traditionally).
The limiting reproductive factor are the women.

That being said what should be done with the overpopulation that is already established? Should the 1st world lower their standards of living to allow for more resources to the poor?
That would be nice, but not very realistic. An attempt to openly reduce the standard of living would lead to regime change and adjustment of the course (Brexit).

I digress, but could a critical global situation (environment/resources) make it necessary to reduce the population for the benefit of humanity? Would you sacrifice humanity for the
ethical principle "thou shalt not kill?" Obviously this would not be without tough priorities.

+1
I share your view point by point.

[shubla]

From traditional ethical standpoint killing other people is bad. Yet some nations actually kill their own and other nations inhabitants for various reasons. (Im not saying we should go from what is the usual conduct to what ought to be done).

Killing people is very profitable these days. So no doubt that countries like US kill many, many people.

From an utilitarian point of view reducing or keeping the population numbers stable might be beneficial for the majority of the population.

This is major problem in most developed countries. Bad genes are passed on because government takes care of weak, sick and stupid ones. Then they get to reproduce and the cycle continues.

We can see that the population numbers are falling or stabilizing in developed parts of the
world. Reasons for this is the awareness of contraception, higher education levels mean women choose to work/have a career instead of being home making/caring for children.
In my opinion its imperrative to educate women. Men are not so important to educate since they can reproduce indefinetively and are not hindered in their career from having many children (traditionally).
The limiting reproductive factor are the women.

I don't think its good thing that less people are being born than dieing in developed countries. This means that they have to get replacement somewhere which is absolutely terrible thing, as those replacements happen to be in bad condition, just trying to leech from the original population. We should change the way that education works, education should control amount of people so it's just right. People should be encouraged to make multiple children. Perhaps we should ban selling all contraception in all developed countries. And then let the government give them out. This way governments could control population by sometimes giving out non-functional equipment.