Friday, September 8, 2017

Morals aka Zuckers, what is right to do

So what are good morals founded on? Logic? Greek cosmopolitanism? Stoicism? Christian? Buddhism? Science, aka modern psychology? Philosophy? Science, the physics of the world? Economic considerations? Notice Islam is not on the list. They have too little to offer. Yes, all have some input, but that is not the problem of morals. The problem is others imposing there morals onto others who have a slightly different set. That is the real problem of trying to control others. If you over control, and do not provide real reasons, you lose the moral reason, moral authority, for the statement, and you lose respect, and the willingness of the underlings to follow. We see volunteer  organizations that go through the same thing, fail and collapse.

Religions belief systems are a poisonous infliction on the world, but they do occasionally have good points but... the world is over populated now... if we use Co2 level as a indicator. Population growth must be slowed, and all religions try to grow new members. This is morally wrong now. Birth control must be promoted by all for all, to help limit the earth population. There is no longer a moral imperative to try to save all people... some must die. This may be the kindest thing to do. The population must decline to something less than 4 billion, based on our current Co2 production. This number is contested, and is a soft number, depending on how we are willing to live, and what condition we allow the earth to get into. Our population is effecting the environment in a big way.

Our outlook on this changes our morals quite a bit. I recognize that those who do not accept human driven climate change... and all the lesser effects will be upset, but oh well. But for those of us who recognize the changes we have made on this world, we humans bear the guilt, and responsibility once we recognized this, and have spoken out against abusing the earth, but few have listened.   

Once we see that we are already overpopulated, the value of human life decreases. We are the too many. To this end, unviable children should be allowed to expire, and we should assist voluntary terminations. Abortion is then not an issue. Only the strong physically will survive, as it was before the modern age. And still we overpopulated the planet. It is easy to understand the resistance to allowing in the refugees. We, in Canada, have enough population, for we in Canada need much winter heat to survive, and that produces much Co2. Everywhere else is already much over populated.

Carbon capture should be given priority, where practical. Forest is good, we should be burred, not burned. A one child policy is needed to allow everyone to carry on their genes if they so wish. Some of us have found youth to be joyless, and would not inflict life onto another human, and thus remained childless. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Gays and other lifestyles we would not chose should be allowed to live out their lives quietly, but if they get uppity or to much in our faces, they will be beaten down. Same goes for the natives, as they were a concurred race which we have supported in recovery to the point of being in a position of influence. Now they want a free ride in our society. My suggestion is it will not happen... Trudeau needs to have the natives account for the money, for the chiefs are becoming rich, and the natives... not so much.  


No comments:

Post a Comment