over a month ago
over a month ago
over a month ago
2 months ago
4 months ago
K*****n W*******h
Unterzeichnet: 00:52, 10/05/2012
Unterzeichnet: 00:52, 10/05/2012
"I have 2 concerns w/ this idea. 1.The distribution of necessities that are scarce & desperately needed, such as medical supplies 4 an epidemic outbreak. When lives r on the line, it is safe 2 bet that tension will rise as 2 who deserves the safety net based off of social standing, importance 2 society, power, selfishness, etc. It's easy 2 say women & children first, but say a man (in this instance) w/ a great mind and a saints soul should live 2 further promote peace 4 the current generations, is unable 2 because of this rule? Even randomizing who lives & who dies could end up working against natures calling 4 natural selection. In starting this trend of world peace, we as humans will still have an incentive 2 survive at all costs, w/ or w/out $$$. How do u convince 7 bil. to know when 2 step down when they are more useful dead in such a crisis? 2. This also ties in 2 world population. Too much of a good thing is bad. How do you convince people 2 not overpopulate in such a society?"
An Facebook weiterleiten
Tweet
An Facebook weiterleiten Tweet