From: rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham)
Subject: Re: N-C abortion
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:55:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.165051.445@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
>rbeckham@bnr.ca (Rick Beckham) writes:
>>
>>   For the sake of argument, let's examine a hypothetical situation.
>>   Suppose that at some future point some scientist (or group of
>>   scientists) comes to the realization that 20 years down the road
>>   there will only be enough food to feed the standing population.
>>   This is considering that all available farmland will be used.
>>   Now if all alternatives were examined and rejected, let's suppose
>>   the conclusion is reached that either a.) all unborn babies will
>>   be terminated, or b.) a segment of the population over 60 will be
>>   put to sleep. Now, if the unborns are terminated there exists
>>   little hope for any future generation, mankind may die out.
>
>that's it. ignore the point and bring in another false analogy. whee!
>
>ok, i'm game. suppose that did happen. (it's just another variation 
>on the relativist "Lifeboat" game, but what the hell.) first off,
>there are alternatives to killing people off. there usually are. i 
>kinda wonder why the hell the people in your example aren't using 
>their tremendous manpower to get into space, but it's your game, i'll
>play along. secondly, even if such extreme measures are necessary in
>times of -serious- problems, that should not be a reflection on the
>worth of certain individuals the rest of the time. and be wary of
>people who claim "These are terrible times! We have to kill ____
>group to make things better!" they're rarely justified by history.
>
 You're absolutely right by that last sentence, but that will not stop
 people in power from exercising it over and over again.
 False analogy? To what? I was merely making a point to the previous
 poster when he stated the rights of the living will always take
 precedent over the rights of the yet to live, or something along those
 lines.
 My example should've been more specific. The world currently looses
 about a million acres of farmland a year due to erosion, this on top
 of an expanding population (can't remember the figures, is it a million
 newborns a minute? a day?). Barring some global catastrophe that
 wipes out a substantial percentage of the pop., mankind will reach,
 and soonly I might add, a situation where there simply won't be
 enough farmland to feed the world. Now as depressing as that is,
 studies with animals have shown that overpopulation always decimates,
 down to the last animal, the group studied. 
 Why in my example does man not escape into space? Why hasn't he
 already if it's that easy.
 You may think my example extreme, but I have actually argued with
 environmentalists who believe the whole world must follow China's
 policies of 'one child per couple', and severely punish those who
 disobey.

>a guy who thinks Logan's Run was a bad enough TV show, we don't need
>to turn it into real life,
>jason
>
>--
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
>`,`  "I'd explain it to you, but your head would blow up." - S. Wright  `,`
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`