Proactive Human Population Reduction

Dingo667

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
58
Points
64
#34
Isn't it a little blasee [couldn't find an "e" with an accent d'aigue [sp?]] to say blatantly that only people who dispise the action of culling most humans have given it some thought?
I think it is rather the opposite way round.
First reaction of someone with no real problems with overpopulation or interest in nature will most likely find this an outrageous idea. Someone who has been interested in natures equilibrium, worried about the earth and animals might be quicker to agree.
I'll say it again, its a good idea and yes if it was done by random and I had to go I would do it - comprende?
Now what about the argument that people who agree wouldn't want themselves to die?
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
7,128
Likes
4,853
Points
259
#35
Dingo, for an acute accént it often works if you press "Alt Gr" at the same time as the "e" (or other vowel) key.
 

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
#37
First reaction of someone with no real problems with overpopulation or interest in nature will most likely find this an outrageous idea. Someone who has been interested in natures equilibrium, worried about the earth and animals might be quicker to agree.
“I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature”

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think”.
Adolf Hitler
 

tastyintestines

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
1,626
Likes
125
Points
94
#38
If everyone lived in Texas it would 24350 per sq. mile. A lot of high rise apts. :p




Oh and karlmarxis, sorry but were aint be all dirt poor rednecks.

And as much as I would love to believe in some rural communal utopia - the reality is likely to more closely resemble midwest America - dirtpoor and isolated.
 

karlmarxismydad

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
17
#39
tonyblair11 said:
Oh and karlmarxis, sorry but were aint be all dirt poor rednecks.
Oops :oops: I missed something out. What I meant to say was depression-era midwest America. And I know, I know, there are rednecks everywhere (even in the UK - we call them chavs).

There's something I really don't understand about the Voluntary Human Extinction argument. It assumes that the mess we've made of the world politically, socially and environmentally was inevitable once we hit a certain critical mass of population.

I disagree. We could choose to do things differently, and better. We do have enough room, it's just we organise ourselves badly and appallingly unequally. The solution to this isn't to say - 'right well, no kids for me. That'll magicaly sort it' but to think about how to do things better, then get off our arses and do something about it.

The VHEM approach is equivalent to someone with tragic personal circumstances thinking that suicide will solve their problems.
 

Peripart

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,522
Likes
2,858
Points
244
#40
Frankly, I think all this talk of culling 90% of the population is wide of the mark.

To be fair, I reckon we could solve most of the planet's problem by killing no more than 10%, as long as we choose carefully.
 

rev_dino

Administrator
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
305
Likes
129
Points
59
Location
Denver CO, USA
#42
Surely the easiest way to cull off all the unnecessary humans would be to simply remove the stupid Warning Lables from common household items and provisions.

Then the problem would just sort itself out, innit?

;^)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#45
One horrified observer was able to make notes on the speech and our gratitude goes to Forrest M. Mims for bringing this sickening display to the attention of the world.
*Quoted from the first article posted that spawned this thread*


That observer was a complete arsehole, so was the person who said it was a sickening display. Objective journalism my arse.

Mide you, this nutty professor is also a complete arsehole - so wrapped up in the idea of using a virus as population control that he failed to realise that of course the world will object, and also that he is going mad, the way all clever people eventually do.

What I would do is use the book of human DNA or geonomes or genes or whatever to create a virus which would kill only peadophiles, rapists and violent psychopathic thugs (sadists); and also all people who would defend them and say they should be protected.

Then I would launch it into the jet stream in the troposphere or something.

The world would still be over crowded, but it would be a better place.

I would then let the human population starve or cannabalise itself as it realises that it has destroyed every part of the earth which could grow food, killed all the animals, and that only they are left on a barren, rocky hell hole where even the oceans are evaporating.

Another Mars.

Arseholes.

At least Venus shows some promise. Maybe later it will cool down and the PH will balance out a bit and we can get some bacteria on there or something?

:twisted:
 

barfing_pumpkin

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
720
Likes
1
Points
34
#46
I think the fact that Pianka likens the human race to 'bacteria' should serve to show his real feelings on the matter: someone whose misanthropy has probably reached insane levels, bearing in mind that he seems to think that the horrendous suffering caused by the Ebola virus is perfectly acceptable if one accepts it as a malthusian panacea.

Besides, if he does believe that it would reqire something like Ebola to wipe out this 90% of the human race, then it leaves his qualification as a scientist in doubt: Ebola has such a fast pathology - it generally kills its victim in about a week - that it would be isolated and quarantined before it had the chance to spread to pandemic levels.

Nah, I just think Pianka is a nasty little fucker whose arguments are based more on misanthropic fury than sound theory.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#47
I agree that this bloke is a poor scientist. Ebola would probably kill a billion or so at best (assuming poor healthcare or planned outbreaks in widespread areas).

I freely admit to personally being a sufferer of misanthropic fury but would prefer to see humanity drop to about 2.5 billion from the present 6.53 billion or so. That would take us back to 1953 and prehaps combined with the fossel fuel reduction would enable mankind to live nicely and consider other species to be valuable for other things than food and hunting.




Perhaps a combo of ebola, smallpox and the spanish flu :)
 

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
#48
There are a couple of points that you don’t mention.
1) 1950 was just after WWII and you would expect the population to rise from that low.
2) The population of the UK is less now than it was in 1950 and this they tell me is due to reasonable living conditions. The very poor have large families for economic reasons.
3) The graph shows that the planet is capable of sustaining twice the present population.
4) If this is the case, then why not feed the poor and get them to reduce their progeny voluntarily.
 

Mister_Awesome

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
264
Likes
5
Points
34
#49
Lots of suggestions of 'there's a better way.' So why hasn't anyone done it. Making suggestions isn't helpful, doing something is. So do your part or it's smallpox for us all!
 

lupinwick

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,645
Likes
2
Points
54
#50
Sadly its because the system won't allow the solving of the problem. Perhaps if the US and West were to plough all that spending on military might into solving the issues with the third world, get rid of the capatilist system and manage the resources properly. Definitely won't happen as long as people are expecting to profit from it.
 

Dingo667

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
58
Points
64
#51
What about letting nature take its way? How about living naturally and if ill take it with dignity and accept that this is the way? Someone close recently died of a certain cancer. He didn't involve the doctors and eventually died in his sleep. Man the didgnity in that!

I'm not saying we should lower our hygene standards, after all being tidy or clean is still natural. However keeping people artificially alive, IVF and people thinking they have the right to have 10+ children doesn't help.
I haven't got children and never will because frankly earth is not gonna be a nice place in 50 years to live.
However lets be realistic. During the bubonic plage [yesssssss] almost three quarters of humankind died. About 100 years later we were back on track again, exactly the same amount as before and rising.
It'll take a lot more than just killing humans off. The connection to nature and the realisation that we are part of it has to be brought back. We should stop acting like natures enemy and so desperately fight against it.

So we don't want to die, neither does any animal [hence flight and fight responses] but when their time comes they just accept it. Death for them is part of life because they are part of the whole picture. Humans are stubborn and think too much and make up ethics and morals that are very much against the universe we live in.

Back to work now...
 

DerekH16

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
867
Likes
10
Points
49
#52
almond13 said:
There are a couple of points that you don’t mention.
1) 1950 was just after WWII and you would expect the population to rise from that low.
2) The population of the UK is less now than it was in 1950 and this they tell me is due to reasonable living conditions. The very poor have large families for economic reasons.
3) The graph shows that the planet is capable of sustaining twice the present population.
4) If this is the case, then why not feed the poor and get them to reduce their progeny voluntarily.
1) Numbers here:- World population rose from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 2.4 billion in 1950 - a 50% increase despite two world wars

2) The total population of the UK rose by 17 per cent from 50.2 million on census day 1951 to 58.8 million on census day 2001. Source

3) The graph has nothing to do with the planet's capabilities: it is merely a forecast of numbers.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
36,888
Likes
23,680
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#54
DerekH16 said:
almond13 said:
There are a couple of points that you don’t mention.
1) 1950 was just after WWII and you would expect the population to rise from that low.
2) The population of the UK is less now than it was in 1950 and this they tell me is due to reasonable living conditions. The very poor have large families for economic reasons.
3) The graph shows that the planet is capable of sustaining twice the present population.
4) If this is the case, then why not feed the poor and get them to reduce their progeny voluntarily.
1) Numbers here:- World population rose from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 2.4 billion in 1950 - a 50% increase despite two world wars

2) The total population of the UK rose by 17 per cent from 50.2 million on census day 1951 to 58.8 million on census day 2001. Source

3) The graph has nothing to do with the planet's capabilities: it is merely a forecast of numbers.
Well done for finding the facts and clarifying it for us! :)
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,442
Likes
3,156
Points
184
Location
Norwich.
#55
Dingo667 said:
What about letting nature take its way? How about living naturally and if ill take it with dignity and accept that this is the way?
I believe that's how many people in the developing world live already (through poverty, not 'dignified' choice). And yet their population figures are still rising. So I don't think that abolishing health care is going to do the trick.

So we don't want to die, neither does any animal [hence flight and fight responses] but when their time comes they just accept it.
What on Earth are you basing this opinion on? My experience from keeping pets is that they'll fight on to the bitter end unless you have the compassion to have them put out of their misery.
 

DerekH16

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
867
Likes
10
Points
49
#56
Mythopoeika said:
Well done for finding the facts and clarifying it for us! :)
I knew that the demography course I did at uni would be useful for something one day... ;)
 

Dingo667

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
58
Points
64
#57
[/quote]What on Earth are you basing this opinion on? My experience from keeping pets is that they'll fight on to the bitter end unless you have the compassion to have them put out of their misery.[/quote]

That's what I mean, they hold on but they also don't start wingeing and begging us to connect them to a machine in order to keep them for another month.
I have had and still have many pets of varying species and I have to say everytime they died I admired their ways and thought why can't humans die like this?
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,600
Likes
16
Points
69
#58
That's what I mean, they hold on but they also don't start wingeing and begging us to connect them to a machine in order to keep them for another month.
I'm not sure they wouldn't if they could conceptualise or communicate such a desire. I would have thought that the will-to-live in animals would be if anything higher than in people - not many species match humans on suicide rates for example, I wouldn't think.
I have always assumed the reason that dying pets, for example, are quiet and still is because they are in pain and have no energy and have an instinctive desire not to attract the attention of preditors to them in their weakened state, up until that point they just try to carry on as if everything were normal, with nothing like our human awareness of mortality at all.

I have known humans, on the other hand, who craved the release of death long before it was due, medical intervention or no.

Plus, as stated above, parts of the world with poor health care and shorter life expectancies also tend to have the highest birth rates.
Humans are instinctive creatures too.
 

Dingo667

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
58
Points
64
#59
Oh, ok, sorry I was wrong. Animals are not at all dignified when they die. They suffer in silnce, not able to make any facial expressions, not even able to talk, I wish they could all be like us humans... sigh...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#60
Dingo667 said:
Oh, ok, sorry I was wrong. Animals are not at all dignified when they die. They suffer in silnce, not able to make any facial expressions, not even able to talk, I wish they could all be like us humans... sigh...
I had a dog that looked like it was in despair and was very very sad just before it died of liver damage.

Dogs wag their tails when they are happy, they show their bottom teeth and narrow their eyes in the same way humans do when they are laughing when the dogs are laid on their back and having their belly tickled.

Dogs do not have human faces, but I think that over the years of living with dogs in my home I have learned to recognise some basic behaviours which lead me to think that I understand what they are feeling.

Maybe also domestic animals such as dogs can learn to mimic basic elements of our expressions of our feelings in a way?

I wonder if a wolf would let a human tickle its belly and wag its tail if I walk into its den after work.
 
Top