Seeing as you are reading this post I will assume you are from a first world country...

Seeing as you are reading this post I will assume you are from a first world country, and if not then I will assume you are at least better off then many of your fellow countrymen. So my questions to you is do we have a moral obligation to fix the vast inequalities between the first world and the third world? Would attempting to do so be a useless endeavor and only hurt us in the long run or would ignoring it lead to the collective destruction of civilization as a whole?

>inb4 autists talking the usage of 1st/3rd originating from the cold war
Yes I know.

No. Only the strong survive. To end poverty, the impoverish should stop breeding.

It would likely be conducive to our wellbeing over the long term not to have large amounts of the planet ruled by dictatorships or failed states.

For one thing, we consume shit from like every part of the planet.

The rich get richer and the poor get– children.

At the rate the third world is currently going that does not seem likely. Should we play a more active role in stopping there unchecked growth, or will they be able to dig themselves out of their poverty?

Good point, didn't think of the dictatorship part. The middle east is a good example of this. If they are not being ruled by a religious dictator they are sending over swaths of refugees and putting a strain on our nations. Aiding in their development into a modern civilization could only be beneficial for us, no? What happens though if we see a repeat of what has happened in the past where our involvement only breeds resentment bigger failed states? Would not our efforts have been in vain?

Truth. Is population control the only feasible option? Is it morally wrong? China is in trouble now apparently because of their attempts of population control.

>Truth. Is population control the only feasible option? Is it morally wrong? China is in trouble now apparently because of their attempts of population control.
The ius trium liberorum, meaning “the right of three children” in Latin,[1] was a privilege rewarded to Roman citizens who had borne at least three children or freedmen who had borne at least four children.[2] It was a direct result of the Lex Iulia and the Lex Papia Poppaea, bodies of legislation introduced by Augustus in 18 BCE and 9 CE, respectively.[3] These bodies of legislation were conceived to grow the dwindling population of the Roman upper classes. The intent of the jus trium liberorum has caused scholars to interpret it as eugenic legislation.[4]

So do not encourage a sweeping policy but instead encourage the rich and smart to have children and discourage the poor form having children. Would modern society ever adopt such an idea though? Are we too late? What effects did this type of policy have on the Romans?

>do we have a moral obligation to fix the vast inequalities between the first world and the third world?
Yes

>would ignoring it lead to the collective destruction of civilization as a whole?
Because this.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

So is it for the benefit of our fellow man or for our benefit by ensuring our security? I guess it does not matter in the end though if it is a win-win. Either way history will remember us as benevolent saviors if we were to succeed.

Calm down Ayn Rand. Although I can see her point. Maybe if presented in the right way eugenic legislation could be universally adopted by modern society. One would just have to show how "barbaric" the alternative is and modern progressive society would eat it up.