Population reduction: Why not?

Originally posted by bigbert81


That is different. Ending someone's life is completely different than never having a life to even fool with. I have already stated that if there was a way to narrow the 4 second gap between birth and death rates, then that would probably be the best option. It's like the difference between a condom and an abortion. Keeping anything from POSSIBLY happening vs. stopping something that already has.

There seems to be a misconception in this thread that I have advocated the wholesale slaughter of people. At no time did I suggest such a thing.

i perpose a plan of human hunting but not in the aspect you may think im perposing that a game of sorts much like the gladiators of roman times a test of true power man vs man with the gladiators equiped with modern weapons much like my current favorite movie the condemed zod would like this very much this pleases zod this idea of hunting the human

reply to post by slackerwire


Ok, I might have looked at what you were saying wrong, and I apologize if I did, but when you ask why people in places like Somalia should continue to exist, you're kind of coming across like that.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Do you really believe ALL people are worthy of life?

That is hardly the point, unless you are actually suggesting that 3rd world countries aren't worthy of life due to their mere existence... But ok, I'll roll with this anyway...

Everyone is worthy of life until they've had a chance, and proven otherwise (Hitler, for example, was in an influential position and chose to commit genocide... he thusly, proved otherwise). Third World nations, by mere existence, do not prove otherwise.

Please copy and paste the part where I mentioned murder

You entertain the idea of genocide (mass murder) as a solution to this issue. I needn't find the examples of you doing so.

Correct, but having tons of children is a problem that is not restricted to, but predominant in 3rd world nations

We have little control over birth control in those places. They're in an unlucky situation at no fault of their own and if everyone was murdered for unlucky situations of no fault of their own, most of us would be far too dead to be writing replies to this thread in the first place. Our own lack of foresight, then, surely, should be punishable by our own deaths. We, the nations powerful enough to make changes failed to do so, I guess that means we're more worthy of eradication than any third world country who had little power over such things. If those who make the biggest mistakes are the ones to face genocide. It should be us that face it. Not them.

Which is why we need a policy similar to Chinas, 1 child per couple, thereby eliminating the threat of overpopulation in the future.

A policy similar to China's may, indeed be an agreeable option. Providing it were properly regulated.

in what ways would the global economy suffer if the populations of Somalia and Ethiopia simply disappeared?

If half the world's population disappeared (as you suggested earlier by stating, generally '3rd world nations'), economy would suffer. I don't know exact specifics for those countries, I am, unfortunately, not an economist. Though, Ethiopia exports significant goods and has trade deals with nations that include China, Saudi Arabia and India. Destruction of it's people would halt that, which would have a ripple effect, I'm sure I don't need to explain the possible eventual implications of that.

Anyway, are you applying to emigrate to Ethiopia once it's population have been destroyed? I don't fancy Ethiopian life, I'm pretty sure few country's people do. So if no one's going to use the land, it, again, defeats the object.

If nothing is done, the horrors of mass overpopulation will be exponentially worse. Especially to those of us in modernized countries who enjoy a high standard of living.

And your final statement really comes down to a question: Do you prefer the crap situation you create yourself, or the crap situation you create by accident? Our deaths by caused by ourselves, or their deaths caused by ourselves? Yeah, which is going to sound more horrible in the history books?

Population reduction hmmm m well ok, but only if you go first. Because I tell ya I would rather it not be me or mine if it's all the same to you. Although with all this talk of over population my first thought was 'it is apparent to me you have not seen much of colorado or Wyoming.. hell even most of the midwest!" You can drive for hours without even passing by a little farming town.

Even with that said I still think that nature does a decent enough job of population control, we don't need to start wiping out people from the face of the earth. Not to mention, who would decide such things? Not a single person on this earth is worthy enough to decide who lives or dies as far as I am concerned.

Just out of curiosity, what makes any of you think humanity needs to or indeed could do anything to truly harm or help this planet?
Short of allout nuclear annihilation (and even that would be temporary in a cosmic view) our ability to change our planet is superficial at best. If the human population needs to be reduced nature will take its course.
Like closing the patent office in 1790 because there was nothing left to invent or forecasting the end of civilization over and over and over again your logic is flawed.You are looking at a longterm situation with a short term viewpoint

I agree the fact there needs to be warning labels on ladders and coffee proves the herd is mostly braindead and worthless but so what, I make my living off braindead and worthless people.
Also the last poster is right, let me add canada and alaska to the list tho. Passing signs that say next gasstation 400 miles makes me think we have room yet

[edit on 18-8-2007 by acetrippps]

Originally posted by MaMaa
Population reduction hmmm m well ok, but only if you go first. Because I tell ya I would rather it not be me or mine if it's all the same to you. Although with all this talk of over population my first thought was 'it is apparent to me you have not seen much of colorado or Wyoming.. hell even most of the midwest!" You can drive for hours without even passing by a little farming town.

Actually I have. I grew up in Northern Wisconsin and lived in Laramie, WY for 6 months. There are wide open spaces all over, however you are neglecting to factor in other problems caused by more people, namely additional strain on our infrastructure.

Even with that said I still think that nature does a decent enough job of population control, we don't need to start wiping out people from the face of the earth. Not to mention, who would decide such things? Not a single person on this earth is worthy enough to decide who lives or dies as far as I am concerned.

Nature actually does a very poor job of limiting population. The global population has grown 400% in 100 years, that isnt exactly a stellar performance by mother nature.

Originally posted by shorty

You entertain the idea of genocide (mass murder) as a solution to this issue. I needn't find the examples of you doing so.

I did? Show me where I advocated killing anyone.

We have little control over birth control in those places. They're in an unlucky situation at no fault of their own Our own lack of foresight, then, surely, should be punishable by our own deaths. We, the nations powerful enough to make changes failed to do so, I guess that means we're more worthy of eradication than any third world country who had little power over such things. If those who make the biggest mistakes are the ones to face genocide. It should be us that face it. Not them.

We have a small amount of control, namely they enact laws we propose if they wish to receive any aid from us. No fault of their own?????? How so?
We, the modern, civilized world have provided a high standard of living for many people, why shouldnt we be able to continue it?

A policy similar to China's may, indeed be an agreeable option. Providing it were properly regulated.

ok, we agree on that.

If half the world's population disappeared (as you suggested earlier by stating, generally '3rd world nations'), economy would suffer. I don't know exact specifics for those countries, I am, unfortunately, not an economist. Though, Ethiopia exports significant goods and has trade deals with nations that include China, Saudi Arabia and India. Destruction of it's people would halt that, which would have a ripple effect, I'm sure I don't need to explain the possible eventual implications of that.

It would halt for a week or 2 until China, India, or any other nation that trades with them brought in their own people to do the job.

Anyway, are you applying to emigrate to Ethiopia once it's population have been destroyed? I don't fancy Ethiopian life, I'm pretty sure few country's people do. So if no one's going to use the land, it, again, defeats the object.

No, personally I prefer a colder climate.

If nothing is done, the horrors of mass overpopulation will be exponentially worse. Especially to those of us in modernized countries who enjoy a high standard of living.

And your final statement really comes down to a question: Do you prefer the crap situation you create yourself, or the crap situation you create by accident? Our deaths by caused by ourselves, or their deaths caused by ourselves? Yeah, which is going to sound more horrible in the history books?

Would you rather live and someone you dont know die or vice versa?

[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]

Originally posted by slackerwire
Show me where I advocated killing anyone.

Your position was stated clearly below (these are examples from just your first TWO posts):

We all know why hunting of wildlife is necessary: The herd must be culled in order to preserve the ecosystem...Sometimes unpleasant events are necessary in order to maintain the greater good...Damn, the idea of billions of people being removed from the planet doesnt get a single response.

That shows you suggesting, plainly that the human race should be 'culled', that this would be 'unpleasant' yet 'necessary in order to maintain the greater good'. You go on to state your are referring to a 'culling' of 'billions'.

We have a small amount of control, namely they enact laws we propose if they wish to receive any aid from us. No fault of their own?????? How so?

Sounds like national blackmail. No... no, worse, sounds like national bullying... no no, worse still, sounds like the start of a US dictatorship. They are in a weak state, they don't have the power or control to enact those laws, think realistically (You state others don't, yet look at the schemes you propose), those statements don't even really deserve a response.

And you appear to be in some confusion as to how the state in certain third world countries came to be. Let me assure you, it isn't because the populace woke up one morning and said 'hey, why don't we be poor, looks like a chuckle'. In fact, many issues have been caused by other nations bullying them, like you suggested, in various ways, the extreme climate they have to exist in, and many other factors.

It would halt for a week or 2 until China, India, or any other nation that trades with them brought in their own people to do the job.

Ah, right, sorry I forgot life was as simple as that.

No, personally I prefer a colder climate.

So, we destroy 3rd world nations for more space, then don't use the space. Just the other week I binned a load of old stuff from my cupboard, it wasn't worthless, bit of a pain, you know, it was just in the way. Then I decided not to put anything else in the cupboard because there's a spider's web in there, but I digress.

Move to the arctic, scarcely populated. Solves your population problems.

Would you rather live and someone you dont know die or vice versa?

What you mean is 'Would you rather kill someone who is helpless die, or would you rather die.' and in response I'm in no position to make such a Godly decision. I'm sorry you feel you are.

Originally posted by shorty


Your position was stated clearly below (these are examples from just your first TWO posts):



That shows you suggesting, plainly that the human race should be 'culled', that this would be 'unpleasant' yet 'necessary in order to maintain the greater good'. You go on to state your are referring to a 'culling' of 'billions'.

Do you usually leave out facts that would destroy your contention, or was it accidental that you left out the part preceding my comment?

You forgot to add this: "Disclaimer: I am not comparing humans to animals, simply using the analogy of why certain events must take place. I am NOT advocating the hunting of humans."

That is found on my very first post in this topic.

Sounds like national blackmail. No... no, worse, sounds like national bullying... no no, worse still, sounds like the start of a US dictatorship. They are in a weak state, they don't have the power or control to enact those laws, think realistically (You state others don't, yet look at the schemes you propose), those statements don't even really deserve a response.

The United States government routinely does the same thing to individual states (DUI laws anyone?), are you opposed to those as well?

And you appear to be in some confusion as to how the state in certain third world countries came to be. Let me assure you, it isn't because the populace woke up one morning and said 'hey, why don't we be poor, looks like a chuckle'. In fact, many issues have been caused by other nations bullying them, like you suggested, in various ways, the extreme climate they have to exist in, and many other factors.

Billions and Billions of dollars in aid have not helped, and they will not in the future. It is time to cut our losses.

Ah, right, sorry I forgot life was as simple as that.

It is often said that the simplest solutions are the correct ones.

So, we destroy 3rd world nations for more space, then don't use the space. Just the other week I binned a load of old stuff from my cupboard, it wasn't worthless, bit of a pain, you know, it was just in the way. Then I decided not to put anything else in the cupboard because there's a spider's web in there, but I digress.

Considering the fact that warmer climate states are the fastest growing, I would say that blows your argument right out of the water. People flock to warmer climates, especially as age progresses. If warm climates such as somalia were no longer rife with 3rd world conditions, it is a safe assumption people from all over the planet would flock there.

What you mean is 'Would you rather kill someone who is helpless die, or would you rather die.' and in response I'm in no position to make such a Godly decision. I'm sorry you feel you are.

Do not place words in my mouth or assume you know what I am thinking. You don't. I said exactly what I intended, and you refused to answer the question.

Originally posted by slackerwire

Which is why we need a policy similar to Chinas, 1 child per couple, thereby eliminating the threat of overpopulation in the future.

we agree on that

I'd rather you didn't post that in a manner that suggests that's what I said, it's your words, not mine. I said something rather different.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by shorty]

Do you usually leave out facts that would destroy your contention, or was it accidental that you left out the part preceding my comment?

You forgot to add this: "Disclaimer: I am not comparing humans to animals, simply using the analogy of why certain events must take place. I am NOT advocating the hunting of humans."

Er... I'm sorry, that simply states you aren't likening humans to animals. You do say 'simply using the analogy of why certain events must take place', then go on to talk about culling of herds. What does that say? It's plain English.

Do you usually leave out facts that destroy your argument, or was your failing to mention that you said plainly about killing billions an accident? You said it obviously and clearly, now you're back tracking...poorly.

The United States government routinely does the same thing to individual states

Yes, it does. Doing something regularly, doesn't however, make it right or proper and doing it on a national scale is an act of war.

Billions and Billions of dollars in aid have not helped, and they will not in the future. It is time to cut our losses.

Another discussion, I'm afraid.

It is often said that the simplest solutions are the correct ones.

Which is why you support genocide as population control.

If warm climates such as somalia were no longer rife with 3rd world conditions, it is a safe assumption people from all over the planet would flock there.

I'm sure it would be a huge hit.... Though you seem to forget the fact it would involve redeveloping an entire country (and more) after a war that killed the entire populace. Grave yards don't make good emigration hotspots.

Do not place words in my mouth or assume you know what I am thinking. You don't. I said exactly what I intended, and you refused to answer the question.

In which case I am mistaken and the question you asked was irrelevant to this discussion.

See my other post regarding 'placing words in people's mouths'.

Thank you.

Originally posted by shorty

Originally posted by slackerwire

Which is why we need a policy similar to Chinas, 1 child per couple, thereby eliminating the threat of overpopulation in the future.

we agree on that

I'd rather you didn't post that in a manner that suggests that's what I said, it's your words, not mine. I said something rather different.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by shorty]

Correction made. Apologies*

Originally posted by slackerwire
Do you ever have any rational points or are you just filled with unrealistic solutions? My hometown is very small, would yours be a better target?

Uh oh.... the claws are coming out...

I see that sarcasm is totally lost on you. Like many people of your ilk, I notice. And by all means, come flatten my hometown... places needs revamping anyway...

But, regardless of the size of your town, surely it pollutes more and uses more resources than say... a town of equal size in Mongolia? Surely then, in the name of supportable human impact on the planet, it makes more sense for yours to vanish?

Oh, and as for unrealistic solutions, you may have noticed, or not as the case may be, that I am not taking your fantasies of killing a lot of people seriously. They are being treated with the contempt they deserve.

You are unwilling to debate facts or statistics, instead you chose to act like a retarded goat. When you care to live in reality, let me know. There is nothing for me to defend. The facts are on my side.

Owww... I am...cut, by the sharpness of that hurtful remark. And by the way, who are you to comment on the mental health of a goat? Are you an animal psychotherapist?

News flash slick, I live in reality. Nobody is debating that there is an issue with overpopulation. You just seem to want death on a grandiose scale. You want people to die, then get off your sheltered arse and go frag some people. Just don't be surprised if you get labelled a new Hitler. Your delusions of being a social scientist are laughable. You want death, you seem to want those that fuel your cushioned life to be wiped from the earth... are you prepared to start working in a sweatshop to make sporting goods or clothes for your fellow elitist closet nazi types?

No, didn't bloody well think so, plank.

The part that contributes the least, African 3rd world nations.

You should read up on corporatism and the like before... no wait, don't bother. Elitists are always right, I had quite forgotten. Yes, by all means, go wipe out those Africans. I'll tell you what, why don't you get off the net, and go and try to wipe out the Africans? Come on, time to fight for your cause. Grab a gat and go wipe out the Africans.

You're not a keyboard warrior are you?

Oh lol... and I almost forgot... my question STILL stands... would you be willing to eliminate yourself, seeing as you believe so strongly in this cause?

Originally posted by shorty


Er... I'm sorry, that simply states you aren't likening humans to animals. You do say 'simply using the analogy of why certain events must take place', then go on to talk about culling of herds. What does that say? It's plain English.

How can you possibly miss the last sentence in my statement? Certain events such as the loss of a percentage of the population. I did not state, nor have I ever suggested the slaughter of those people.

Do you usually leave out facts that destroy your argument, or was your failing to mention that you said plainly about killing billions an accident? You said it obviously and clearly, now you're back tracking...poorly.

You are worse than the fools over on myspace. I never said anything about KILLING did I? Of course, you could always prove me wrong by posting the verbatim quote.

Yes, it does. Doing something regularly, doesn't however, make it right or proper and doing it on a national scale is an act of war.

You avoided a simple question: are you opposed to it when they do it to the states? It is a stipulation. If foreign nations want OUR money, they must abide by OUR wishes.

It is often said that the simplest solutions are the correct ones.

Which is why you support genocide as population control.

Again, you may want to look up the definition of the word genocide, you obviously don't know it.

I'm sure it would be a huge hit.... Though you seem to forget the fact it would involve redeveloping an entire country (and more) after a war that killed the entire populace. Grave yards don't make good emigration hotspots.

Where are you getting this absurd notion of war? I never said any such thing.

I know the planet is way to populated.I also know it's wrong to hurt innocent people.I think we can lower the population of the planet without killing innocent people.We have to figure out how to lower the pop in a safe in peaceful way.

Originally posted by Terran Blue



But, regardless of the size of your town, surely it pollutes more and uses more resources than say... a town of equal size in Mongolia? Surely then, in the name of supportable human impact on the planet, it makes more sense for yours to vanish?

my hometown also produces more than your little village in mongolia.

Oh, and as for unrealistic solutions, you may have noticed, or not as the case may be, that I am not taking your fantasies of killing a lot of people seriously. They are being treated with the contempt they deserve.

Surely you can copy and paste the exact thread in which I mentioned anything about killing anyone right?

News flash slick, I live in reality. Nobody is debating that there is an issue with overpopulation. You just seem to want death on a grandiose scale. You want people to die, then get off your sheltered arse and go frag some people. Just don't be surprised if you get labelled a new Hitler. Your delusions of being a social scientist are laughable. You want death, you seem to want those that fuel your cushioned life to be wiped from the earth... are you prepared to start working in a sweatshop to make sporting goods or clothes for your fellow elitist closet nazi types?

Is the reality you live in one of denying facts while not putting forth any solutions? That is all I have seen you do here.

Name a single instance of how anyone in somalia or ethiopia "fuel my cushioned life".

You should read up on corporatism and the like before... no wait, don't bother. Elitists are always right, I had quite forgotten. Yes, by all means, go wipe out those Africans. I'll tell you what, why don't you get off the net, and go and try to wipe out the Africans? Come on, time to fight for your cause. Grab a gat and go wipe out the Africans.

You're not a keyboard warrior are you?

Nope, I have served my country, have you?

Oh lol... and I almost forgot... my question STILL stands... would you be willing to eliminate yourself, seeing as you believe so strongly in this cause?

Absolutely, but I wouldnt be going alone.

we also need to start teraforming mars as fast as we can.So that we can start colonising mars and then that will lower earths population really fast.And we need to start colonising the moon and other stable moons in the solar system.There are 100s of moon in our own solar system to colonise and that will really lower the population and we will also populate the solar system to.We can make thousands of space hotels and space stations were people can live.Jupiter has over 60 moons for people to live on.We can save the human race only if we start using our minds and our hearts and also stop being so ignorant.Peace to all.

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Dictionary.com

orginally posted by terran blue
furthermore, I would like to ask: Just out of curiousity, what part of the world did you have in mind to decrease population by first? Middle East? China? Damn Muslims and Chicoms man, they need to go!

Don't they?

originally posted by slackerwire
The part that contributes the least, African 3rd world nations.

That is the definition of genocide.

Certain events such as the loss of a percentage of the population. I did not state, nor have I ever suggested the slaughter of those people.

you never stated 'kill 'em all' in so many words, but you stated it enough that everyone saw the meaning behind them. You spoke of culling the humans like the culling of animals. We all saw it!

I never said anything about KILLING did I? Of course, you could always prove me wrong by posting the verbatim quote.

I have shown your comments clearly implying and suggesting that several times.

You avoided a simple question: are you opposed to it when they do it to the states? It is a stipulation. If foreign nations want OUR money, they must abide by OUR wishes.

*yawns* seems everyone you talk to just keeps evading questions tonight.

Where are you getting this absurd notion of war?

Same question to you.




But you've really just destroyed your entire argument with one statement that shows the level of debate you're stooping to as your argument shatters and falls:

You're worse than the fools on myspace

[edit on 18-8-2007 by shorty]

Originally posted by slackerwire
my hometown also produces more than your little village in mongolia.

Please find where I said it was MY little village. And you are right: it no doubt does produce more pollution, more waste, more idiots who dream of genocide...

Surely you can copy and paste the exact thread in which I mentioned anything about killing anyone right?

Observe, from your FIRST post:

The herd must be culled in order to preserve the ecosystem.

Would you like me to post a definition of a cull?

Is the reality you live in one of denying facts

What facts were I denying? Please find specifically the part where yours truly denied facts.

Oops, another silly-arsed misrepresentation effort blown out of the sky...

while not putting forth any solutions? That is all I have seen you do here.

I repeat an earlier statement that I made:

Originally posted by Terran Blue
Oh, and as for unrealistic solutions, you may have noticed, or not as the case may be, that I am not taking your fantasies of killing a lot of people seriously. They are being treated with the contempt they deserve.

So, back to what you were saying...

Name a single instance of how anyone in somalia or ethiopia "fuel my cushioned life".

You're getting two different posters mixed there, ace. I didn't specifically mention Somalia or Ethiopia.

However, you could always look at southern Asia, where many sports goods and clothes are made for export to the west.

Nope, I have served my country, have you?

Of course you have, sport, of course you have.

And let me guess, you consider yourself a 'man of honour' and whatnot, who protects civillians and ensures that the constitution of the United States stands for freedom, etc etc etc.... and... wait.... hold on, a true warrior of freedom is here advocating genocide? OMG.....

Absolutely, but I wouldnt be going alone.

There you go, now we're getting somewhere here, sonny. So, a suicide bomber eh? That take your fancy? Gonna kill some civvies are you?