Can the elimination of humans foster human wellbeing?

So says this new research done by Science Daily. Thus we are now beginning to see the fruits of Sam Harris, who says that science can answer moral questions.

Well here’s an answer of science – eliminate the birthrate.

But if you eliminate the birthrate, then modus ponens you eliminate childhood, but then fortiori you eliminate adults! And what are we, if not adults?

Yet wellbeing is part of the fabric of the universe, as Brian Greene has vomited.* So you can’t have wellbeing without having the universe, and you can’t have the universe without adults.

The Vienna University of Technology should have its accreditation revoked by NIH.

*Yes, I know. A rare instance of my agreement with this Melchizedek of nonsense.


8 thoughts on “Can the elimination of humans foster human wellbeing?

  1. Eliminate humans? Eliminate the birthrate?

    Where do you see that in the article? It talks about how reducing the birthrate shifts the demographic to include a greater percentage of older vs. younger people, that fewer children in the system may allow greater resources to be expended upon them for education, and that it makes sense to continue educating older people as well as younger ones to keep everyone productive.

    It sounds like you are the one spouting nonsense, and should have whatever accreditation you have revoked for vomiting it into cyberspace.

  2. Eliminating the the birthrate poses additional problems. The biggest such problem might be determining who gets to have their birthrate lowered first. The smallest problem is there would be no one left to read our blog posts.

  3. Angel Plume:

    It is clear that you have not yet grasped the useful tool of reduction to absurdums, commonly used in the sciences. I’m talking about how a reductio in birthrates leads to absurdity. The absurdity is the elimination of humans.

    Just because the scientistic establishment can’t think through their premises, doesn’t mean you can’t also. Use your brain!


  4. Mr. Tomato,

    The worries you raise are serious ones. Undoubtedly, scientists would claim that their order (of birthrate reduction) creates separate but equal categories. But we know that the supreme court unjustified this practice in science years ago.

    The second consequence, that the audience for our blogs wouldn’t remain, is a brilliant observation. I’ll take it one step further. There would be no more readers for Science Daily. Therefore, the policy proposed by Science Daily is self-defeating!


  5. Yes, NS, I am quite familiar with the technique of reductio ad absurdum. However, the idea is to end up with an absurdity by assuming the opposite of what you’re trying to prove, not to start out with an absurdity as your main premise.

    In this post, you misrepresent the article’s main subject, which is a consideration of how a reduced birthrate affects the economy and other aspects of society, to be that eliminating the birthrate could somehow improve human society in the long run, which of course is absurd. In fact, the use of reductio ad absurdum could be used to prove that even if reducing the birthrate could improve our current society in the short-term, eliminating it entirely could not possibly do so, since it would result in the absurd situation you describe… the extinction of humanity.

    You haven’t taken the article’s actual premise to an absurd conclusion, you have misrepresented it in an absurd way in an attempt to discredit the article’s findings. Your flawed logic does not qualify as a reductio ad absurdum proof.

    Also, the comments both you and Tomato Addict have posted imply that the scientists are proposing to force a birthrate reduction onto the population, which is also not the case here. There have been many studies that have noted, for example, that when nations become more affluent or prosperous, the birtrate often decreases and sometimes even becomes negative, leading to the conclusion that one of the best ways to control an unsustainably high birthrate is to work toward eliminating poverty and/or excessive stratification within a society. This article is simply analyzing what implications might arise from such existing (or future) changes in birthrate, since there has never before in history been such a situation in the global community.

  6. Sorry… didn’t proofread that final paragraph well enough before posting. The birthrate itself wouldn’t become negative, of course. Rather, the overall population growth can become negative if the birthrate falls below the death rate. I realize, according to your glossary, you believe negative numbers are themselves absurd, but what would happen here is people would be dying faster than new ones are born, decreasing the size of the population as a whole, which constitutes a negative growth rate.

  7. @ AngelPlume – A clarification: I did not suggest lowering the birthrate by force or otherwise, merely that eliminating the birthrate poses additional problems.

    @ NS: Recently on Terrence Tao’s blog, he examined the “any object can be defeated” argument as an alternative to the “no self-defeating argument” (ie: reductio ad absurdum). You might find it interesting.

Type your comment(s) into the computer screen

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s