  |
|
Metamath
|
 No Mass Culling Ok, so given that the world's problems are often associated with the undeniable fact that there is an over-large human population, is a mass culling of the human race a purposefully justifiable proposition? I say to the utmost that it is not. The maths simply does not add up. There are nearly as many as 8 billion people on this planet presently. If the average individual in the population has some 40 years of life remaining and it would also take fifty years to finish the culling, that would require the loss of some 40*8,000,000,000 = 320,000,000,000 man-years of life. Over fifty years this figure would still rise, not fall. If the population is reduced to say, just 2,000,000 people, then the human race with an average lifespan of eighty years would be needed to survive for at least another 160,000/80 = 2000 years before the situation would return to a balance. (In "man-years" preserved or saved.) Is this a reasonable risk to take? Most certainly not. The suspected reason for this is not to spare lives or suffering, but to maintain the access of the super rich to the remaining oil and resources that would keep them in their accustomed comfort whilst the poor are enslaved further than can be imagined. The oil will not then run out for another few thousand years at most, pollution would drop to an "acceptable" level, but the race would not persist as it would have been wished. Certainly, then, not for another 2,000 years. It is, in fact, a most selfish idea to prey upon the wishes of all to preserve the lives of the future, but it is simply a matter of how that selfishness is manifested. The implementation is simply to shift the problem onward, since the planet's population is not merely human, not intended just for us and never a gift to be utterly spent and exhausted. Similarly, such mass murder is always without excuse, the greatest evil this world would and could ever commit. The question is then, how selfish is the human race? If we have any christian faith it is that there will, or certainly shall be, a "last day". It will not be the fault of God that we humans have destroyed his work. That is no surprise, and God has once before repented of making man. There is no second flood promised for the human race to again die out and God has promised to accept the responsibility of that work to redeem the fallen creation with all its suffering with His final judgement (a positive outcome overall). Salvation will remain intact, (and is signified by a rainbow in the clouds), and Christ will return. Is this, then, also a selfish proposition to have sure hope and faith in God and to remain charitable? Most certainly it is, or again, most certainly not. I.e. when it is perceived collectively (improperly) that it is not a fault to sit on one's hands either way with regards to faith (whether God returns or not) when it is also perceived to be selfish (a fault of the same collective) to take any part in bringing that mass culling rather than to otherwise let the human race and all others become extinct - and it is also most certainly true that it is selfish to take that extreme action if it becomes totally unnecessary instead. So, I ask if the continuation of the human race some 2,000 years is a greater expectation of faith than that realised in the second coming of Jesus Christ? I have the promise of God Himself on one outcome (the latter) and only the expectations of the completely militant for the other. I do, however, expect great works of faith before the world is ever consigned to such an extreme end and I expect them of my God as well. If the odds of God existing (Christ being true) are guessed 1-1, then I would rather side with Christ! |
 |
|
