My Indian medical student friend just sent me this bit from his social medicine textbook. He's not very impressed. Also had a class once on how to make dead bodies feel better about being dead.pic.twitter.com/C50sntBoiG
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
And as my friend pointed out, India is overpopulated. If some women decide not to have babies and focus on other important things, this would be a good thing.
One baby per woman would be enough to curtail population overgrowth. We can say having one baby is the most important thing. Subsequent babies are diminishing returns.
Or some women can have two and others can have none. Or no-one can have any. The worst that will happen is that humans will go extinct and that is unlikely but morally neutral.
When technology reaches that stage, indeed the importance of women as life-creators will be substantially diminished.
Until then, people can decide whether or not reproducing themselves is important. There is no moral imperative to perpetuate the species.
http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall%20the%20Religious%20Inherit%20the%20Earth.pdf … Extinction will be selective...
Probably.
Well, then you admit that you're wrong. Extinction is not morally neutral, because it will affect only those with your ethical worldview. Read Kaufman's paper
Then its not extinction, is it?
Selective one. Subgroup extinction.
Well, sure, that happens all the time. No moral imperative to reproduce so your own culture/religion survives either.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.