English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wouldn't the world be better off if a few billion of the destitute just went away instead of lingering around and being a burden?

2007-10-17 07:34:01 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

9 answers

Hey....I've brought this up in the past..well, sort of. I used an analogy a few weeks back about how the Bears out here in the west have had a real tough time this year.....no food, no water. They coming down into the cities looking for food and water. One of the local wild life experts is dead set against giving the bears food drops...he's rather see nature take it's course. I say let's do the same for the left....Let's have nature take it's course. We'll get rid of a few million lazy libs and the world would be a better place.

2007-10-17 07:43:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is a strange question. I would be worried about UHC due to the fact e have the best Health Care it has just become unaffordable for so many. The gov. runs the VA hospitals and look at the condemned conditions they are in. As far as the Few billion destitute just going away is a very harsh statement. Some people were not born into money or they have fallen on hard times. I do think if we would send all the illegals in our country back to wherever they came from then Medical Ins. would go down because right now the people who are paying extreme Insurance prices are paying for those without. Our gov. made some law years ago that states they can not turn anyone away from a hospital for lack of money. So we have overcrowded Emerg. rooms because most do not have Doctors and Doctors want to be paid.

2007-10-17 07:48:14 · answer #2 · answered by My Baby! 7 · 0 0

Without allowing human emotions to effect our judgment and using only logic, it is true that letting more sick people die has a lot of benefits. As a species we will be better off if less of people prone to sickness do net get the chance to pass on their genes. Also by not supporting sick and old people more resources will become available for the more productive and healthy segment of the society. The problem is that such a society will lack cohesion to the point that it will dissolve. Human empathy is a very strong force. Anyone with parents, siblings or children knows that it is almost impossible to be logical when it comes to your loved ones. You know that your grandparents are old, they have lived a long life. But how would you chose which one should die if there is enough money for only 1 of them to live? How would you decide which one you should kill if there is a situation where only 1 can survive?

Mr. Ding: The US and Europe is overpopulated. If you look at the rate of resources that these countries consume you will see that these places are extremely overpopulated. Another measure you can use to see if a place is overpopulated or not is the price of real-estate, and living in general. Again, in the US and Europe these prices are high because there is more demand than supply for basic commodities. What measure do you use to come to the conclusion that US and Europe are not overpopulated?
The fact that the birthrate is negative in many industrialized nations is not because the youth are lazy. In every country and culture, the educated layer has a lower birthrate than the less educated.

2007-10-18 06:37:29 · answer #3 · answered by vahid 4 · 0 1

Have you read "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens? Or even seen a decent movie version? That was part of the point Scrooge makes at the beginning of the book.

[Page 15, Scrooge is speaking of debitor's prisons and work-camps]
"I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides-excuse me-I don't know that."

----

You might recall that Scrooge came to realize the value of human life is not the same as the value of their bank account.

2007-10-17 08:08:15 · answer #4 · answered by NightBear01 4 · 1 0

I don't think we should, if everybody would volunteer to contribute some money to our healthcare system we would be able to help the people who get sick instead of the people who are not sick but go to the hospital anyways.

2007-10-17 07:50:04 · answer #5 · answered by Sadie C 4 · 0 0

Nobody's suggesting health care for everyone on the planet - just for the residents of the US.

The US isn't suffering from overpopulation. Neither is Europe. Our birth rates are too low to even maintain our populations. That's why it's so important that we import workers from Mexico - our kids are slackers who are too lazy to make babies.

2007-10-17 07:41:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Ah, yes, the "only the rich deserve to live or breed" argument.

This from the people who claim moral high ground on "values" issues.

2007-10-17 07:55:10 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0 0

That's only an acceptable solution if they haven't been born yet (sarcasm).

2007-10-17 07:37:13 · answer #8 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1 0

no transmission of disease is #1 concern

2007-10-17 07:42:15 · answer #9 · answered by becvns@yahoo.com 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers