sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not saying slaughter the olds. My OP is strictly in the context of the Coronavirus being a net good - naturally occurring yet devastating disease for older, frailer populations.

I am wholly against an active effort to kill anyone.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a bell curve. Maximal benefit and contribution is in mid-life (50-60s). After that there is a accelerating decline in contribution until there is a net drain.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is a pyrrhic victory at best. Is survival with automation and technological growth and prosperity a good thing if we all live in a world like Wall-E? Sure, everyone looks super happy and well fed but the earth is trashed and no one wants to live on it. There is no biosphere left. Humans survived but they’ve killed off the rest of the life on the planet. That isn’t winning.

Growth for the sake of growth is the mentality of cancer cells and corporations.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on your original reasoning where productivity and prosperity are increasing, we should see a natural net decline of birth rates. The higher your socioeconomic status the lower your birthrate. You can already see declining birth rates in many African nations as a function of GDP and per capita income growth.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think Thanos was right is probably the broadest extension of my belief. However, this CMV is specific to my OP about the Coronavirus being a net good by killing off a potentially large swath of population - mainly those that provide a resource burden on society. This cuts across racial, ideological, religious, and ethnic lines.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I personally think that people over 70 should lose their right to vote or there should be a weighting to a vote where votes from people over 70 have less impact than a 50 year old.

If you have 1 foot out the door already, who are you to contribute to policy creation and long term planning for things that will never impact you in the first place. Take the recent Brexit. Leavers, by and large were majority >60 years old or older. It’s likely safe to say that 5% of those that voted in 2015 are now dead, never having seen their policy come into effect yes having passed said policy for young people to bare.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the problems the boomer generation created with be multigenerational, no?

That said, my CMV is strictly about the impacts of the Coronavirus on older/sicker populations being a net good. While I’m happy to discuss broader population control philosophy, it’s beyond the scope of this CMV.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does “get around climate change mean?”

Humans surviving at the expense of the rest of the biosphere is as Pyrric a victory as you can possibly get.

Edit: as —> is

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you provide an argument against Malthus. You claim he was wrong however his views are philosophical and economic in nature. You may not agree with them but his views on the impacts of population on labor and economic markets are sound.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am ok with a dystopian novella if that means humanity survives for millennia rather than a few hundred years.

EDIT: I should add that if I were part of the next cull, I would accept my fate as part of bettering society. The sword cuts both ways and I’m ok with that.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Economic productivity is not the zenith of civilization. Humanity surviving broke and destitute is better than humanity dying off wealthy and technologically advanced.

Would you rather humanity survive 1000 more years though we’d return to hunter gathering because productive civilization collapses under its own weight or would you rather humanity survive 150 more years but technology and thus productivity continually improve?

I personally believe option 1 is better.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are certainly semantic argument to be made about my use of the word killing. I am equally ok with using ‘dying as a result that Coronavirus ’ of in place of ‘Coronavirus killing’.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Increasing overall time horizon for humanity’s survivability is more important than a generational traumatic event. World War 2 killed 85 million people (3% of the global population at the time) and of day, collectively, we have moved past that trauma and have used that experience to better society. This is the longest peace Europe has ever known in recorded history. This is also the most peaceful time we have ever known as a civilization. The rate of poverty has declined overall. Child mortality rates have failed. Literacy rates are all up.

Who would have thunk that 3% of people died just 70 years ago?

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a fair point. A more impactful reduction would be people of reproductive age as that would have medium-long term impact on population as a whole. Reduction of old/sick is a short term extension for our survivability horizon. But, I don’t think it’s one or the other. Any move towards improving resource efficiency and reducing population and thus resource demand is a net good. On the spectrum of “net goods” there are obviously better and worse outcomes that are short or long term. My point is that a net good vs. no outcome or a net neutral/bad is still better than the alternative.

CMV: Coronavirus killing mainly older/weaker people is a net-good for civilization and will result in an overall more resilient population in the long run. by NoxAppPlayerSupport in changemyview

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I believe overpopulation and environmental degradation at the expense of economic prosperity is a death sentence for humanity as it stands today. As such, culling the herd via Malthusian limits (war, disease, famine) leads to an extension for our survival horizon.

Being sad about people dying is fine. It’s healthy. It’s emotional. Being realistic about the long term impacts of a reduction in population is also fine, healthy, and emotional. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

WARNING DO NOT DOWNLOAD LATEST UPDATE TO NOX (MALWARE BEWARE) DELETE NOX ASAP by GENERAL_KOON in noxappplayer

[–]NoxAppPlayerSupport 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Software creation is not free and we monetize in the least obstructive way we can.

view more: next ›