mybronathan :
Dr. Simpson, do you have a population number in mind that the U.S. can sustain before the mean minimum quality of life starts to erode? If so, what is it? If you don't, then why are you continuing to advocate for policies & programs that preserve human life at all costs? My feeling is that while we MAY be able to sustain our current population in the short term, fighting to preserve population EXPANSION is most-certainly short-sighted. Every life we save from dying today is inevitably UNNECESSARILY compounding shortages of natural resources & eroding freedom, wealth, opportunity, & happiness for EVERYONE in the future. Why can't we advocate for being content with what we already have instead of foolishly, greedily, & short-sightedly pushing for ever more until we DESTROY our economy & environment? As a society we need to clarify & justify our ideal population limit & establish laws & public policy to MAINTAIN it - not EXCEED it. Once we do, that will enable us to more-sensibly agree on policy that would affect it. For example, if people are dying of measles b/c they're refusing vaccinations b/c they think it will anger Jesus, it might be easier to just let them die instead of spending ever-more public money to save them: NATURAL SELECTION. We're surely not running out of people. In fact, their exodus would ultimately IMPROVE society, the economy, & the quality of life of their survivors & the rest of society. Refraining from mindlessly pulling out all stops to avoid or delay any & all death would disarm insurance companies' using healthcare as a vehicle for extorting citizens' wealth. You seem to be saying give the insurance companies whatever they ask b/c all human life is priceless. Such attitudes is what caused insurance companies to become so corrupt & healthcare costs to become so high in the first place.
2026-11-05 23:49:04