[Bynary Fission]

Originally Posted by fuzzykoala

Ok, I'm gonna go off on a tangent here because it's something that's been on my mind lately. If you don't agree with the assumptions that I'm making here (I don't think they're controversial), just go with it and judge my line of reasoning on its own merits. Also there's a bunch of factors involved so bear with me here.

Everything that we comes out of nature. It is easiest to think about in terms of energy. To simplify, globally we consume about 30% more than the Earth can regenerate a year. Everywhere in the world, people are consuming more and more energy per capita while the population increases. Unless there is a technological miracle that happens, ultimately not only will there not be enough energy for everyone, but the environment will have degraded to the point where it is not possible to support a population even near to the
achieved maximum.

The two factors involved with this problem are the size of the population and the amount of resources/energy consumed per capita.

I am also going to assume that people should have a reasonably equal chance to advance themselves in life and be able to achieve a respectable and relatively existence. I personally don't think that it's fair that I should have the chance to do anything I want with my life if it means that some kid in x number of countries has to work 16 hours a day in a sweatshop without any hope of doing anything else.

Ok. Now the question is what to do if I want to consider myself a moral person.

The most obvious answer that we as western society is overtly pursuing is to bring all those other people up to our standard of living. The problem with this is that consumption will continue to increase unabated, resulting in the problem described above - and the ugly ugly deaths of billions of people.

Another possible solution is to reduce the amount that we consume. By we, I mean the wealthy developed world. If we want to be fair about it, some people that have calculated the maximum possible amount of productive land have estimated that there's enough space for everyone to use 2.2 hectares. People in the developed world tend to use about 10. That represents a significant drop in standard of living. Is there a point when lowering the level of consumption makes life no longer worth living?

If we answer yes to that question, that leads us to the problem of lowering the population. Now, the methods for this are either controlling the population by limiting how many kids people can have, or straight up killing them. Since the population of the first world is declining, it stands to reason that it makes sense to control places where the population is increasing. However, since these people are living in places where they generally consume much less per person, and therefore killing one person in the first world would have more of an effect than a bunch of poor people.

Therefore, should I kill myself in the interest of giving someone else the chance to use the resources I would otherwise consume more effectively and sustainably? How can I justify destroying the futures of untold generations of children and the hopes of the developing world by shortsightedly destroying the environment by maintaining a lifestyle that I think is worth living? If I am the only one who kills myself is it a pointless gesture?

I'm sorry that this isn't directly related to the topic, but I'd like to know what someone else thinks about all this.

If you are the only one who kills yourself, yes, it is a waste. After all, animals and humans use resources that are overused or not. But animals don't kill themselves over it. So why should we? Who says that you can't give back and help improve the quality of living for all? The only way we can improve the quality of life for others and possibly help create or promote new ways of generating energy is by living, in turn using energy.

Yes, many areas of the world are using more resources than can be replenished. Yes, we have severe issues with overbuilding in many areas of the world. But considering we are a sentient, intelligent race that goes through periods of growth and intellectual Renaissances, we are bound to eventually take up more than can be used. However, we are also discovering new methods of using energy, and possibly even new energy sources. It takes time for this to be developed, and if the people who researched this killed themselves to stop using energy, we would end up being far worse off with them dead then them being alive.

Have you ever heard of a Dyson Sphere? It is a spherical object that would encompass an entire star to harness it for energy. This is highly theoretical, but maybe possible in a few hundred years from now given the rate of technological advancement. And what about colonies in near-space? They can run off of 100% solar energy, which is virtually unlimited. And don't forget about using antimatter as a possible energy source. The technology for it is very far off, but it may be available within the next 30-50 years. The only way to do this is to go through years and years of building, research, and energy expenditure.

My point is, is that we cannot harness energy without using it. You can't make money without spending money. And you can't make friends without being one. All the same principles apply here. Killing yourself because you use energy is a WASTE. Animals have to use energy to live. So do we. While you may have noble intentions, you won't do a single d*** thing for humanity. Now if billions of people decided to do the act, then you'll make an impact. But until you can influence a billion people to do so, that is not a viable topic. If you go, you'll save 1/7000000000th of the energy used by humans. That will make no difference. So live your life, do good, and be part of the solution, not the problem. Then, you will have made more of an effect in life then you ever could in death.


~Bynary Fission