The world is becoming overpopulated. How would you fix it?
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
PumpJack McGee wrote...
My belief is that the herd has grown to the point of holding us back.
You're the only person holding yourself back.
I don't see what minimum wage earning idiot in Florida, a poor Russian farmer or even your neighbors are doing to "hold" you back.
Also there's no denying that out of necessity innovation is often born, but it doesn't have to come from war or being at the brink of total annihilation.
Are you arguing for eugenics applied on a global scale or something? Either way I don't think it's necessary. Maybe that's because I'm just another stupid Murrican who values freedom too much.
0
Drifter995
Neko//Night
Kona-chan wrote...
Lollikittie wrote...
>Do away with gun laws.>implying people don't/won't own illegal guns...
Hey, they got rid of guns down here, and people still have guns illegally (well, some people do. But they use them for hunting 'n' shooting possums 'n' shit)
Death by gun has gone down a lot since, iirc
0
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Cut the population back down to 3-4 billion. Adhere to no sympathies for gender, religion, or nation- the only criteria is profession; the ones that keep the utilities and facilities running, and the ones that are developing new technologies to help sustain ourselves.
0
cruz737 wrote...
Drifter995 wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
Why do we need population control?So instead of advancing we should thin out the herd? Very pessimistic and retarded.
It's not really that bad.
I mean, it is... but yeah.
The odds of humans exploring the galaxy looking for a new planet to live on, any time soon is quite low.
Sorry for the typo.
But why exactly do we need population control?
For political and economic reasons. Basically, the government need to know the information and do something about the population of one's country. Example: You make enough money to feed 3 people in your family, but without a "population control", you could have ten children which ultimately means you can't fend for them, thus creating more trouble for the government.
PumpJack McGee wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
We do we need population control?So instead of advancing we should thin out the herd? Very pessimistic and retarded.
My belief is that the herd has grown to the point of holding us back.
Shedding some excess weight would facilitate advancement- as it has done before.
Without the catastrophe of World War 2, we would have no radio, no computers, no freighters, no microwaves, we'd probably only be reaching space sometime around the mid-90's, and medicine and surgical knowledge would be about 50 years behind.
I submit my suggestion on the same grounds that there are organised forest fires; there is too much, and it's choking itself out. Burn all the muck and rot, and let life grow anew.
War made people create things like that, true enough. But maybe we wouldn't need them as we think they are now, if there was no war? And if they benefit people much, which they are, they will eventually be created, anyway.
0
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
And bombing is too inefficient. The human body is actually quite resilient to shockwaves and flames.A lot of people survive explosions.
Bombing would take too long and you'd be left with billions of cripples, and our hospitals are taxed as is.
Bombs are most effective for destroying shelter, facilities, and infrastructure and as a pure terror weapon.
Bombing is not enough to kill? That's new.
They're not the most effective. You have to be smart about how you go about it.
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Again- there is no way to fix things. Peace is stagnate, and war is not carried out properly.There is need of another Genghis Khan. A true tyrant. After a reign of merciless slaughter, those remaining shall unite and overthrow him, and a new era of prosperity is ushered in.
That's how things work and have worked for hundreds of years.
Why? You think we need more wars?
And Genghis Khan is not really a tyrant. True, he did terrible things, mostly to his enemies and hi opposers, but if we look at things more objectively, he did things for a bigger cause, much like Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, or Cao Cao of the Three Dynasty period, but I won't go too far into history now.
On this point, we're actually more in agreement than you think.
A side effect of his massacre across the continent was forests growing back, because there were no more people clearing them out/cutting down trees.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
For political and economic reasons. Basically, the government need to know the information and do something about the population of one's country. Example: You make enough money to feed 3 people in your family, but without a "population control", you could have ten children which ultimately means you can't fend for them, thus creating more trouble for the government.
What political reasons? I don't see a mass uproar for population control. There are also a lot of economic turmoil is the population of a certain place suddenly increased drastically(someone mentioned 3-4 billion). Smaller populations or stagnant doesn't mean better.
And as for economic reasons, if the population is constantly increasing it should be time to innovate, not kill people simply because they exist. Maybe the govt can try promoting the use of contraceptives. It's probably cheaper than killing or having everyone under constant surveillance.
0
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
And bombing is too inefficient. The human body is actually quite resilient to shockwaves and flames.A lot of people survive explosions.
Bombing would take too long and you'd be left with billions of cripples, and our hospitals are taxed as is.
Bombs are most effective for destroying shelter, facilities, and infrastructure and as a pure terror weapon.
Bombing is not enough to kill? That's new.
They're not the most effective. You have to be smart about how you go about it.
No, really, I find that's new, coz just some years ago, you couldn't open a newspaper without reading a headlines "People died of bombing terrorists..." etc. and etc. If you have to pick one weapon, what would you say will be the most effective?
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Again- there is no way to fix things. Peace is stagnate, and war is not carried out properly.There is need of another Genghis Khan. A true tyrant. After a reign of merciless slaughter, those remaining shall unite and overthrow him, and a new era of prosperity is ushered in.
That's how things work and have worked for hundreds of years.
Why? You think we need more wars?
And Genghis Khan is not really a tyrant. True, he did terrible things, mostly to his enemies and hi opposers, but if we look at things more objectively, he did things for a bigger cause, much like Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, or Cao Cao of the Three Dynasty period, but I won't go too far into history now.
On this point, we're actually more in agreement than you think.
A side effect of his massacre across the continent was forests growing back, because there were no more people clearing them out/cutting down trees.
Not sure if there was that side effect, lol
0
cruz737 wrote...
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
For political and economic reasons. Basically, the government need to know the information and do something about the population of one's country. Example: You make enough money to feed 3 people in your family, but without a "population control", you could have ten children which ultimately means you can't fend for them, thus creating more trouble for the government.
What political reasons? I don't see a mass uproar for population control. There are also a lot of economic turmoil is the population of a certain place suddenly increased drastically(someone mentioned 3-4 billion). Smaller populations or stagnant doesn't mean better.
And as for economic reasons, if the population is constantly increasing it should be time to innovate, not kill people simply because they exist. Maybe the govt can try promoting the use of contraceptives. It's probably cheaper than killing or having everyone under constant surveillance.
Well, the gov doesn't kill anyone? And they do advise people to use contraceptives and have responsibilities for their children. Here, they advise us to have only one for two children per family. In China, it's obligatory that a couple of husband and wife have only ONE child, while in Denmark and some other European countries they advise people to have more kids.
Know GDP? This matter is much more complicated than just simply more or less people living.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
Well, the gov doesn't kill anyone? And they do advise people to use contraceptives and have responsibilities for their children. Here, they advise us to have only one for two children per family. In China, it's obligatory that a couple of husband and wife have only ONE child, while in Denmark and some other European countries they advise people to have more kids.
Know GDP? This matter is much more complicated than just simply more or less people living.
You didn't answer my question either, what political reasons?
But making suggestions isn't a form of "population control" unless they punish you.(like having 3 kids instead of 2 you get taxed more, although that seems really mild)
And yes I know of "GDP", and you're only proving my point when I say we(well whoever is in charge) shouldn't have to control the population.(there are more efficient ways of taking care of "problems")
0
cruz737 wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
My belief is that the herd has grown to the point of holding us back.
You're the only person holding yourself back.
I don't see what minimum wage earning idiot in Florida, a poor Russian farmer or even your neighbors are doing to "hold" you back.
Also there's no denying that out of necessity innovation is often born, but it doesn't have to come from war or being at the brink of total annihilation.
Are you arguing for eugenics applied on a global scale or something? Either way I don't think it's necessary. Maybe that's because I'm just another stupid Murrican who values freedom too much.
I said "us" not "me".
You seem to think that I want to rule the world. That I desire a throne.
No.
It is not personal gain that I seek. I seek to help everything as a whole.
All I'm saying is that a horse can go faster and further if it's carrying less.
Civilisation rise and fall, and I believe that this one is reaching its apex- my suggestion would simply preempt whatever cataclysmic disaster awaits us, and will hopefully soften the fall.
I return to my analogy of the forest fire.
We have premediated and controlled forest fires because- were we not to, the resulting blaze from accident or natural causes almost always ends up being far more destructive and wild.
It's a question of lesser evils here.
We need to do away with sentimentality and a sole, selfish, Narcissistic focus on just humanity- and start thinking about ourselves as part of the greater system of this planet.
If we keep going the way we're going, we are going to drain the planet of it's resources, poison the sea, choke the air, and ultimately die because we have rendered the planet barren. Insects and bacteria will be all the remains.
We are making good progress in the fields of green technology and sustainability- but it's too little too late.
The ship is sinking. Dump the cargo and buy us time.
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
No, really, I find that's new, coz just some years ago, you couldn't open a newspaper without reading a headlines "People died of bombing terrorists..." etc. and etc. If you have to pick one weapon, what would you say will be the most effective?
You can't have just the one weapon. I wasn't ruling out bombs- I was just saying that bombs alone are not sufficient.
Dawn_of_Dark wrote...
Not sure if there was that side effect, lol
Restoring greenery was not the reason why Genghis slaughtered his way across Asia, though- that's why I call it side effect.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
PumpJack McGee wrote...
I said "us" not "me".
You seem to think that I want to rule the world. That I desire a throne.
No.
It is not personal gain that I seek. I seek to help everything as a whole.
What do those people owe you though? If it's not about you, the individual, why do you want to control the livelihood of others, since YOU are suggestion that we use population control to "shorten the livestock". If you wish to help "everything" as a whole you should look to improve yourself first before trying to "help" others.(and by help I mean genocide)
PumpJack McGee wrote...
All I'm saying is that a horse can go faster and further if it's carrying less.
I'm quite literally sick of analogies(due to Lustful Angel, and this point I pretty much am arguing with him), so if you want to make a point, just say it.
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Civilisation rise and fall, and I believe that this one is reaching its apex- my suggestion would simply preempt whatever cataclysmic disaster awaits us, and will hopefully soften the fall.
So you want to get prevent a disaster by making another one?
PumpJack McGee wrote...
We have premediated and controlled forest fires because- were we not to, the resulting blaze from accident or natural causes almost always ends up being far more destructive and wild.
And the human population isn't a forest. Again, don't use analogies.
PumpJack McGee wrote...
We need to do away with sentimentality and a sole, selfish, Narcissistic focus on just humanity- and start thinking about ourselves as part of the greater system of this planet.
There are better ways to do that without drastically lowering the human population.
PumpJack McGee wrote...
We are making good progress in the fields of green technology and sustainability- but it's too little too late.
The ship is sinking. Dump the cargo and buy us time.
People are not pollution. Blaming too many people for driving climate change is like blaming too many trees for causing bushfires.
The real cause of climate change and many other problems is that we have an economy locked into burning fossil fuels for energy and unsustainable agriculture.
The world isn't full or at max capacity.
One way we can help lesson the problem is by making contraceptives(and improving healthcare) easily available in places with poverty, since those usually are the ones with increasing population(a lot of western countries have either a slowly decreasing population or it's stagnant)
Even if whatever it is I can contribute somehow makes me "worthy" of staying alive, I don't think I could stomach such injustice.
0
cruz737 wrote...
What do those people owe you though? If it's not about you, the individual, why do you want to control the livelihood of others, since YOU are suggestion that we use population control to "shorten the livestock". If you wish to help "everything" as a whole you should look to improve yourself first before trying to "help" others.(and by help I mean genocide)
This proposal is utilitarian to a fault, and so injustice and fairness are moot points.
If the world was fair, there would be no suffering.
Fair is something we uphold and aspire to, but it is a dashed dream.
cruz737 wrote...
I'm quite literally sick of analogies(due to Lustful Angel, and this point I pretty much am arguing with him), so if you want to make a point, just say it.
Analogies help present the same ideas in different lights and perspectives. I maintain my stance that we have evolved and developed a culture of excess.
cruz737 wrote...
So you want to get prevent a disaster by making another one?
In my opinion- a smaller disaster to prevent a much larger one. Something's gotta give. Best trigger it before more builds up.
cruz737 wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
We have premediated and controlled forest fires because- were we not to, the resulting blaze from accident or natural causes almost always ends up being far more destructive and wild.
And the human population isn't a forest. Again, don't use analogies.
It's still applicable and illustrates the situation fairly.
cruz737 wrote...
There are better ways to do that without drastically lowering the human population.
"Better" is subjective. We hold vastly different views on the whole morality spectrum, so I think we'll agree that any argument over that point is not gonna go anywhere.
But I do think that- when it comes to fantasizing apocalyptic scenarios- we are far too self-absorbed. Only thinking in terms of what will happen to us.
A flood is terrible for people. It's a fantastic boon of nutrients and sediment to starved soil, and a sigh of relief to the overtaxed water ways.
cruz737 wrote...
People are not pollution. Blaming too many people for driving climate change is like blaming too many trees for causing bushfires.
The real cause of climate change and many other problems is that we have an economy locked into burning fossil fuels for energy and unsustainable agriculture.
The world isn't full or at max capacity.
One way we can help lesson the problem is by making contraceptives(and improving healthcare) easily available in places with poverty, since those usually are the ones with increasing population(a lot of western countries have either a slowly decreasing population or it's stagnant)
Even if whatever it is I can contribute somehow makes me "worthy" of staying alive, I don't think I could stomach such injustice.
It's not just too many people- it's too many of the wrong sorts of people. Wasteful people.
People driving hummers around the same three blocks to vaunt their wealth.
People dumping dinners because they overestimated their appetite or simply don't like it.
People taking taking too many showers, or shower too long.
People staying with wasteful and harmful energy sources because bureaucracy and corruption ensures that that's the only type they can afford.
I will agree that the contraceptives as a good way to start addressing the problem. That and education.
And getting them to stop fighting each other long enough for some kids to actually get that education before the school is raided or bombed.
In which case it's a question of religion/dogma, in which case I see no solution for these folks to just GET TO A FUCKING AGREEMENT AND LEAVE EACH OTHER THE FUCK ALONE or a question or scarce resources/accessibility- in which a significant part of that is due to desertification and global warming.
In which is fault of Mr.Hummer and oil companies.
Which is why I suggest killing Mr.Hummer and Mr.Oil company.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
The culture of excess was brought out by innovation and creativity, and yes to some degree complicity.
If you're going to argue about something being subjective, there is no no reason why you should bring in your morality and crusade against big oil companies.
Again this is an issue with you(the person), not the universe. Claiming you're proposing it for the "greater" good doesn't change the fact that it is about you.
If you're going to argue about something being subjective, there is no no reason why you should bring in your morality and crusade against big oil companies.
Again this is an issue with you(the person), not the universe. Claiming you're proposing it for the "greater" good doesn't change the fact that it is about you.
0
cruz737 wrote...
Why do we need population control?So instead of advancing we should thin out the herd? Very pessimistic and retarded.
...
What?
You hate everyone. This is confusing.
0
cruz737 wrote...
The culture of excess was brought out by innovation and creativity, and yes to some degree complicity.If you're going to argue about something being subjective, there is no no reason why you should bring in your morality and crusade against big oil companies.
Again this is an issue with you(the person), not the universe. Claiming you're proposing it for the "greater" good doesn't change the fact that it is about you.
Well, it's not something that threatens to become reality. I've not the resources to commit such an act, and- I think you'll agree- I would have a mighty hard time finding supporters to help me carry this out.
Essentially, I do think we desire the same thing- a better place. We simply disagree on what needs to be done to bring that about.
You believe that we'll be able to pull ourselves out of the fire; be able to avert disaster through hard work, fortitude, goodwill, and persistence.
I think that we need to crash and burn, and then rise from the ashes.
Although you do mention something that I glanced over: complicity.
That's likely one of the key cogs within the cycle of the rise and fall of civilasations; we become complacent, and from that, comes decadence and- ultimately- downfall.
0
We need a disease to wipe out all the ignorant idiots in this world. They serve no purpose but to take up space and waste our resources. Also, we need to deal with the greedy douches that are here on Earth; we could throw them in a pit and dump some food in there once in while.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Lollikittie wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
Why do we need population control?So instead of advancing we should thin out the herd? Very pessimistic and retarded.
...
What?
You hate everyone. This is confusing.
I don't really hate a lot of things or people. I do dislike quite a lot of things though.
Even if I don't love/like/respect something or someone, there's certain things I won't do.(one of those things is support genocide)
