Human Race: Your Numbers Up

[ib.me.ub]

I do understand the concept of, "thinning the herd", but I don't think she would be so cavalier if it was her house and her friends of whom the world decided to "thin".

Good point. Who decides who dies?

Thats why its such a hard/bad thing. As you said above, it really needs to be a conscious decision. A decision to not have children though goes against our instincts and scocial norms. A hard thing to do indeed. How do you get an entire planet to understand and accept this concept. I would say it is impossible.

Perhaps we need to go through the motions.

[Cinjin]

I do understand the concept of, "thinning the herd", but I don't think she would be so cavalier if it was her house and her friends of whom the world decided to "thin".

Good point. This one is always a good one. Who decides who dies?

Thats why its such a hard/bad thing. As you said above, it really needs to be a conscious decision. A decision to not have children though goes against our instincts and scocial norms. A hard thing to do indeed. How do you get an entire planet to undersdtand and accept this concept?

There may be only one way. Mankind has to learn a lesson that can only be taught by total destruction. Religion has a strangle hold on this planet. The muslims and the christians are surely not going to stop breeding, and since they account for a huge portion of the population - we're probably screwed.

The strange thing is, people like Sae and many others don't see any immediate threat and therefore don't really care whether or not changes are made. But that's just it ... if you were told that your children were going to suffer and possibly die and the world would come to an end - wouldn't you, despite your beliefs, stop breeding for the chance at living??? Yes, we would have to consider it a very drastic worldwide emergency effort just as if we were forced to hide underground from a planetary killer such as an asteroid, but most everyone would be willing to do it in order to live.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I do understand the concept of, "thinning the herd", but I don't think she would be so cavalier if it was her house and her friends of whom the world decided to "thin".

What would be the current world population had there been: No black death in the Middle ages, no wars in say the last 100 years,no Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot,no famines and no AIDS? Keep in mind that humans breed at an exponential rate.


Of course,humanity needs drastic thinning,by about 80%. However, that should only be in places which will not effect me personally;such as India, China, Africa, South America, the Middle East (leaving the oil intact) and perhaps parts of the Southern USA.

This would reduce the rate of climate change and make the remaining natural gas, oil and coal last a lot longer.

The only thing we've learned from history is that we've learned nothing from history (anon)

[Violet]

The population issue that Sae brought up - I actually agree with. We desperately need population controls and I would be the first to volunteer for a vasectomy if thats what it takes. But that does not fix the problems we already have and Sae's willingness to kill off people she doesn't care about is disturbing because it is that exact mindset that is going to bring the world to a violent end. If everybody wants everybody else to die except for them - where is that going to get us. Endless war.

I do understand the concept of, "thinning the herd", but I don't think she would be so cavalier if it was her house and her friends of whom the world decided to "thin".

I think you misunderstand me... I am a very selfcentered individual. I'll see all of humanity and this entire planet destroyed before my untimely death.

In my mind, the world is the herd. There is no difficulty for me in wondering who gets to be thinned... not that anyone needed to decide this anyway. The lucky will pull through. Or perhaps it is that they are unlucky. I'm never sure which

Oh, and I favor endless war. Just not with everyone at the same time

---

Which few billion, your few billion or their few billion, or any few billion. But as others, and now myself, have said, would this be such a bad thing? Ofcourse it would be bad. But the survival of the human species needs this to happen. If we are to make it to the next level, hard decisions must be made, or hard things will happen automatically.
We can do it in less devastating/destructive manner ourselves, or we can wait and see what happens. Sadly, I think we are going to wait until it happens.

The few billion that would least affect me, of course. We are going to wait until it happens... but not necessarily in all countries at the same time or to the same extent

---

The strange thing is, people like Sae and many others don't see any immediate threat and therefore don't really care whether or not changes are made. But that's just it ... if you were told that your children were going to suffer and possibly die and the world would come to an end - wouldn't you, despite your beliefs, stop breeding for the chance at living??? Yes, we would have to consider it a very drastic worldwide emergency effort just as if we were forced to hide underground from a planetary killer such as an asteroid, but most everyone would be willing to do it in order to live.

I see much more immediate threats that require much more of my attention. Should the world be so blissful that this would be at the top of my priorities, this is not a discussion we would be having.

I hate hassles... I'm finally working out my hormone replacements and whatnot. Turns out sex and what random strangers see me to be is more important to me than the survival of our species

Anyway, I have done my part in this as I see it: I have not had children and will not have children.

[Anomalocaris]

I think you misunderstand me... I am a very selfcentered individual. I'll see all of humanity and this entire planet destroyed before my untimely death.

Note to self:

Should things get nasty, Aerzia would attempt to withhold from me the last remaining resource that would enable one human to survive. Best to have her smeared out on a strip of pavement before that eventuality.

[Violet]

I think you misunderstand me... I am a very selfcentered individual. I'll see all of humanity and this entire planet destroyed before my untimely death.

Note to self:

Should things get nasty, Aerzia would attempt to withhold from me the last remaining resource that would enable one human to survive. Best to have her smeared out on a strip of pavement before that eventuality.

I'm as tenacious as a cockroach

Should things get nasty to the point I am reduced to the last remaining resource... you can have it. I'm committing suicide the easy way thank you.

[Cinjin]

What would be the current world population had there been: No black death in the Middle ages, no wars in say the last 100 years,no Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot,no famines and no AIDS? Keep in mind that humans breed at an exponential rate.


Of course,humanity needs drastic thinning,by about 80%. However, that should only be in places which will not effect me personally;such as India, China, Africa, South America, the Middle East (leaving the oil intact) and perhaps parts of the Southern USA.

Ok so if I looked at it from your point of view ... What do I really need from ANY of the nations from the rest of the world. We'll start by nuc-ing (nuclear bombing) Australia, then China, Japan, India and North Korea. We'll get the big ones out of the way first, than go around nuc-ing the middle east through all of Europe and end with Britain. Cause really ... who cares about human life ... as long as its not me.

I find this sentiment of yours repugnant and comparing complicit war to diseases and famine is just asinine. You are condoning the slaughter of billions of innocent people, when the real answer is just to keep the humans we have from breeding. No one dies. The herd is thinned, and the world stabilizes.

Pad, I knew Sae was morally reprehensible already but at least she's not a hypocrit about it. I direct you to your postings in the thread: "Would You Do It?"

[Violet]

Ok so if I looked at it from your point of view ... What do I really need from ANY of the nations from the rest of the world. We'll start by nuc-ing (nuclear bombing) Australia, then China, Japan, India and North Korea. We'll get the big ones out of the way first, than go around nuc-ing the middle east through all of Europe and end with Britain. Cause really ... who cares about human life ... as long as its not me.

Keep in mind that a great deal of our production and resources come from other nations. You don't have to care about the people at all to want those countries to remain populated and working.

I find this sentiment of yours repugnant and comparing complicit war to diseases and famine is just asinine. You are condoning the slaughter of billions of innocent people, when the real answer is just to keep the humans we have from breeding. No one dies. The herd is thinned, and the world stabilizes.

/rant

We are unstable... all laws are ultimately futile. People will murder whether it is legal or not. If you can't legislate what people do without holding guns to their heads: your law is worthless in the first place. They do not respect it, but the power you can wield against them.

No point to making laws except as clarifications to the ignorant. And this is why you can't stop people from breeding without using force. People will have more babies than you legislate they be allowed. It absolutely will occur. Ultimately... can we stop people from destroying the planet underneath their population? Yes... but it comes at a sickening cost of freedom and privacy... and people will not follow it because they do not respect the law, but the force behind it.

/endrant

Pad, I knew Sae was morally reprehensible already but at least she's not a hypocrit about it. I direct you to your postings in the thread: "Would You Do It?"

I still find it funny that some of you seem to think I'm morally reprehensible ^_^

[Anomalocaris]

I do understand the concept of, "thinning the herd", but I don't think she would be so cavalier if it was her house and her friends of whom the world decided to "thin".

What would be the current world population had there been: No black death in the Middle ages, no wars in say the last 100 years,no Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot,no famines and no AIDS? Keep in mind that humans breed at an exponential rate.


Of course,humanity needs drastic thinning,by about 80%. However, that should only be in places which will not effect me personally;such as India, China, Africa, South America, the Middle East (leaving the oil intact) and perhaps parts of the Southern USA.

This would reduce the rate of climate change and make the remaining natural gas, oil and coal last a lot longer.

The only thing we've learned from history is that we've learned nothing from history (anon)

Actually, human population only increase exponentially where the population is much below the carrying capacity of the land. For much of human history, technology progressed slowly, conversion of primitive land to cultivation happened slowly. The carrying capacity of land changes slowly. Most regions of the world was near its population carrying capacity much of the time. The occurrance of a plague might knock the population down a lot, but it would bounce back to more or less the figure as before, and then stay there, limited by the same carrying capacity as before. The death toll of plagues of ancient era, and the black death of the middle ages, probably had negligible direct effect on the world's population today.

The single largest plague induced depopulation event in history is likely the result of the Columbian exchange. More recent research suggests that pre-contact population of North and South America may have been in the 100 million range. The native Americans lack both immunity to old world diseases to which they have not previously been exposed, as well as genetic diversity that would have limited fatality even amongst other populations without immunity. As a result, 95% of the pre-exchange population may have been wiped out in the 100 years after Columbus first made contact. So the total death toll was in the ball park of 100 million, or about the same as the death toll of Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined, and 4 times that of European black death.

[Cinjin]

Ok so if I looked at it from your point of view ... What do I really need from ANY of the nations from the rest of the world. We'll start by nuc-ing (nuclear bombing) Australia, then China, Japan, India and North Korea. We'll get the big ones out of the way first, than go around nuc-ing the middle east through all of Europe and end with Britain. Cause really ... who cares about human life ... as long as its not me.

Keep in mind that a great deal of our production and resources come from other nations. You don't have to care about the people at all to want those countries to remain populated and working.

I find this sentiment of yours repugnant and comparing complicit war to diseases and famine is just asinine. You are condoning the slaughter of billions of innocent people, when the real answer is just to keep the humans we have from breeding. No one dies. The herd is thinned, and the world stabilizes.

/rant

We are unstable... all laws are ultimately futile. People will murder whether it is legal or not. If you can't legislate what people do without holding guns to their heads: your law is worthless in the first place. They do not respect it, but the power you can wield against them.

No point to making laws except as clarifications to the ignorant. And this is why you can't stop people from breeding without using force. People will have more babies than you legislate they be allowed. It absolutely will occur. Ultimately... can we stop people from destroying the planet underneath their population? Yes... but it comes at a sickening cost of freedom and privacy... and people will not follow it because they do not respect the law, but the force behind it.

So we should go with whatever option is easiest? Blowing people off the face of the map is definitely easier. Nice motto: When the going gets tough, the tough massacre the weak. Nice.

I never said population control by means of birth control would be easy. Emergency actions are often NOT easy to do or easy for a population to swallow. Necessity dictates that we offend a few people in order to save the future. This to me is far better than your proposed solution .... "kill 'em all".



For fucks sake Sae, you actually said that you support endless war as long as you're not envolved. jesus tapdancing christ! You represent everything that is wrong with our society.
Watch Tears of the Sun some time. I wouldn't wish endless war on anyone.