Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (17312)	11/23/2003 7:35:54 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793698

I haven't heard a rationale for picking those who have to die or are denied the right to procreate. I'm not offering one. Or suggesting that anyone else offer one. Why do you assume that anyone has to be killed or denied the right to procreate to maintain a stable or somewhat decreasing population? As we've been discussing, Europe and the US aren't replacing themselves without immigration and there don't seem to be any "picking" rationales in place there. People sometimes just naturally reduce their baby production. It's called voluntary abstinence and birth control. The question on the table is why are we bemoaning that natural process. Why should we as a matter of public policy urge folks to go forth and multiply any more than they already are? Or to shift into your paradigm, what rationale should we use for picking those who are forced to procreate? I still haven't heard a rationale for increasing our population...