User2006 wrote....
My claim is that because hospitals cure humans, those humans, which are to die and to accept their fate as death. Hospitals are not to exist because it cures people who are meant to be dead. The population thus consists of all the people who are not to be dead + some people who are meant to be dead, and the more the latter value is, the more extra people there are, and that is how overpopulation appears. Because humans value their distinctive groups as much as their collective species and individualism, and humans are the only animal so far that can develop medicine and so on, thus that is how overpopulation is caused.
I argue that a Hospital, using common sense alone, could not be considered a direct cause of over-population, in the event of over population.
Let us take a look at what a Hosptial ultimately is.
Now before we take in to account the specialised health care and medical staff which work in Hospitals, we must look at what a Hospital fundamentally is.
It is a building.
A building on it's own requires building by Humans. Mostly construction workers.
Now once we have established this ground base, we can now move on to evaluate the medical staff which work in this institution.
The medical staff which work in the health care institution, already have something in common with eachother already. That being, they are born, already.
Once a person is born. That person has an instinct to survive. Babies that do not have this survival instinct, refuse to suckle, and they require force feeding, or they will die. Medical staff will do everything they possibly can to keep this baby alive, by force feeding it, because once a human is born, we do everything in our power to sustain that life. It is simply survival instinct. All Animals have it. I would imagine.
So therefore medical staff would be nothing more than an "indirect cause" of over population, in the event of over population.
The real cause would be sex. And not using contraception.
If the world is over populated, this would need to be solved, not by killing people, or refusing to help in the event they are getting savaged by a group of Moroccon wild dogs, but by limiting the amount of births we allow, via education and contraception.
So lack of education and contraception, would be considered the "direct causes" of over population.
This is my main argument ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Below is simply additional to fill blank space.
Now let us see of the wikipedia community agrees with my argument?
So we see the Wikipedia community agrees with me.
The very first cause, wikipedia mentioned, was "Births".
I am not sure i personally agree with Wikipedia on theiir list of other causes, and i think they are all "indirect", and come "after" the main cause, of "Births".
Sure, we can blame mortality rates. But if education and contraception had been performed in the first instance, there would be no requirement for forminng suicide pacts.
Again, if education and contraception had been practised, there would be no requirement for what the left wing would deem racist measures.
Now i do believe that this one above, could be considered a little more "direct". In the event of a natural disaster, a Famine or a Drought could lead to unsustainability due to resource depletion, and in this event there would likely be a war over the remaining resources so the over population crisis would sort itself out this way anyway, and in the event of reduced medical supplies, there would not be much hospitals can do about it anyway, as Hospitals also require certain resources, and without those, they will be less effective. So quite simply, a Hospital cannot perform very well anyway in an over-populated world. By the fact that Hospitals still have resources to treat people with, is evidence of the degree the world is overpopulated.
In Britain the NHS is feeling the punch. But the Hospitals do still have resources. And there are probably still political options left open for politicians to improve the NHS. It is perhaps not all a resource based issue. And just as much a financial management issue.
But this shows, that Hospitals cannot be blamed for over population, as hospitals will "suffer" in the event of over-population.
So Hopsitals are not the cause of over-population.
But their ability to provide adequate service in the event of over-population, could see them become a "victim" of over population.
Also what constitutes over population also depends on geographical area.
How much renewable resource an area has, versus non renewable.
London for example, is able to sustain up to 12 million people by day.
But in the Sahara, where there is a serious risk of starvation, Londoners would not be able to survive in the Sahara for very long, and their numbers would reduce "rapidly". War and disease would break out. And they would begin starving. And any hospital that tried to treat those individuals, quite simply would not have the resources to do so. The number of humans that could survive, would deplete all the way down to a very small number, that are actually able to forge a living out of what little resource the Sahara has to offer.
I provided some links and sources.
However it was mostly common sense. Were not really required.
But no.
Hospitals are a very "indirect cause". Or, no cause at-all.
Hospitals can only provide adequate treatment when the world is not over-populated.
And whilst they are able to provide adequate treatment, of course, they should.
People tend to love their loved ones. And do not want to see them die.
Contraception and Education are the defining root factors.
And perhaps responsibility.
Thank you.
GG mate. You have won the debate.
Got all the time in the world mate. Business shut down because of corona virus. Lorry broken down and cant get it fixed because garage it is under warranty at is shut down until farther notice. Customers are going off their heads phoning me and complaining but i am not responding...What was that we were discussing? Oh yes, suicide pacts....Well why not? Yes, good idea.
Because I don't support suicide pacts, why don't you present an argument against the alternate me that supports suicide pacts in the comment section, if you have time to?
To be fair, I had never even thought of this in relation to suicide pacts. In fact, I hadn't thought about suicide pacts before.
Darn. Wish you had told me that before i accepted lol. Your argument might not be so easy to dismantle now.
no. I don't support suicide pacts.
Are you going to argue in favour of a suicide pact in order to solve this problem?