Should Curing Cancer, AIDS, etc. Be Outlawed and Genocide Encouraged

In my rebuttal I will be stating why it is a viable option to use genocide in order to limit global population and thus prevent economic or social collapse, rather than my opponents alternative, which is government intervention on a global level. First, we need to look at human nature, is it not more in our "blood" (figuratively speaking) to be violent creatures, rather than to obey laws that keep us from what is natural to us or any other animal? Yes, we are a more sophisticated species, yes, we have formed laws in order to protect ourselves and others but is that right? What is so wrong with death in the first place? Genocide is an option to prevent global collapse because it is easy. The governments of the world would have a much harder time trying to work together to find a solution to resource consumption than to allow certain entities to try their best at taking over sections of the world and eliminating certain populations. Even with all of the resource conservation we could muster, a growing population such as our would continue to sky rocket, and it would not be enough to save us from collapse, for the world simply cannot continue to grow the way that it is now. While many of the worlds more civilized countries would be more against using genocide as a tool to limit our population, third world countries, and all the corrupt powers in the world would use it to seek not only further power, but also global domination, and naturally larger states like the U.S., Britain or Russia would step in and "fight the good fight" in order to stop these powers. Through many wars we would slowly but surely decrease population and return to a more reasonable standpoint with our population. If we decide to continue to outlaw genocide and continue to work around trying to conserve our resources, we will be forced to limit the number of children to be had by each family, thus not only causing society to decline due to unhappiness with either gender or the limit of kids allowed, but also a very regulated and hard to control population that may simply lead to revolt, as many cannot see the eventual outcome of the increase in population and what the would mean for us as a whole. This example has already been show by the feature "The Children of Men", as well as by China's own decision to limit the number of kids allowed by a couple, which has led to many Chinese daughters either sold into sex slavery or even being killed so that the couple has a chance to have a boy; the desired gender in China. (Source: http://geography.about.com...) (Source 2: http://www.gendercide.org...) While we, being humans, see death as a dreadful thing, not to be welcomed into society as I think it should, as a whole it needs to be understood that for the betterment of mankind and thus more joyful future that death will bring upon a balance in not only resources, but wealth, and power as well. A decrease in population would serve many purposes, not just to avoid a certain global collapse, but also to prevent future war and suffering, through a short period of war and the outlawing of curing certain life threatening diseases such as cancer etc. I feel that if we as mankind are willing to make the small and insignificant sacrifice of about 5 billion people, then we can retain a much longer and more peaceful human existence, for a long period of time to come. If we decide to deal with all of these issues on a diplomatic level then we not only run the risk of still seeing global collapse, but we also do not solve the problem, as we will continue producing, ignoring the risk of it all, and becoming frustrated when we aren't allowed to have children. The diplomatic view only allows a "band aid" to the current situation, whereas the elimination of a large number of humans allows a much longer lasting peace and a future where we can all be civilized and provided with the proper amount of necessary resources for all