|
|
|
|
|
|
by csisnett
1706 days ago
|
|
|
I have asked repeatedly for what exactly are the limiting factors that will make population unsustainable and there hasn't been satisfactory answers that could defend your position or make me rethink. You should be able to defend a position that other people think is immoral specially if you think is morally good. The Wikipedia link and theory is based on a computer model. No model can predict future innovation because part of future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends. So you have something you can't predict (future innovation and how that will affect energy and new materials). The burden of proof is on you given that you want to do something unnatural and immoral: make sterile millions of people. If you want to sterilize yourself I don't agree with it but I cant stop you but that's not enough for you folks, you presume you have the right to promote mass sterilization so yes I'm going to say it for what it is: immoral. |
|
|
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28904716
You're also showing a pattern of deflecting and projecting rather than addressing the specific issues addressed by others.
On Wikipedia: I link to it as a general reference. Again, there is a long and large literature, the article is just one of numerous jumping-off points. There are others, such as Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=population%20overshoot&...
Arguing based on unknowables ("future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends") is literally an appeal to ignorance. Arguing from the point that a premise is unknown and unknowable does not prove conclusions premised on that premise being true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
As an alternative to the hivemind, Locke: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/locke0417.htm
You are putting words in my mouth regarding what you're again fabricating as another's argument. I said no such thing, that is again your fiction. I'll merely respond that in advocating unsustainable population overshoot that you are committing many billions to lives of poverty and misery. And committing the fallacy of composition to boot.
Burden of proof relates to factual claims, not moral ones. Those are ultimately goverened by the is-ought relation.
And if you'll read elsewhere in this thread, I've actually already addressed your specious and repeated question:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28904666
Again, I await your answer to my first question, though with low expectations.
Serious question: Are you commenting to try to better understand a question and viewpoints about it, or only to promote your own views and cast aspersions? Because your comments strongly suggest the latter.