StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hypothetical scenario: Someone give you the job of regulating the human population on earth,so on the 6 billion+ humans how many would you kill and how much will be left after?

Montcalm wrote:Hypothetical scenario: Someone give you the job of regulating the human population on earth,so on the 6 billion+ humans how many would you kill and how much will be left after?

basicly anyone who is prepared to give me a lot of money, women and other stuff of value on a regular basis will survive.

I would kill those incapable of giving back to society. Retarded folks, those with birth defects, those kind of people. Then I would kill those who REFUSE to give back to society, and instead just suck on its collective teat (those on welfare!).

By the way, my definition of "give back to society" isn't "help the environment" or any stupid shit like that. Pull your own weight, and you can stay. Those that fall behind, die.


(uhh...I think this is why I'd never be elected leader of any large group of people )

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:
(uhh...I think this is why I'd never be elected leader of any large group of people )

no problem if the group consists of nazis...

salm wrote:

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:
(uhh...I think this is why I'd never be elected leader of any large group of people )

no problem if the group consists of nazis...

Hey, that's a bit far. I wasn't pushing for perfection, simply those who can take care of themselves and do a little for "everyone"...

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:I would kill those incapable of giving back to society. Retarded folks, those with birth defects, those kind of people. Then I would kill those who REFUSE to give back to society, and instead just suck on its collective teat (those on welfare!).

And after ending playing the nazi, you'd still have the exact same situation. The west in not overcrowded and it will never be. Your purity program is thus unnecessary. In continents like Africa and Asia the lack of birth control and education is the problem, not a few people with birth defects.

If it was absolutely necessary to depopulate the planet, I would initiate space colonization programs. It is never acceptable to destroy the people, no matter how much cash it would save. Build colonies, load them onto giant nuke-powered space liners, and send them into orbit, to the moon, Mars, whatever is worked out to be the best.

I'd go for implementing a Chinese style birth control program in India and several other South East Asian nations, only far more strict to get an actual decrease in population rather then just slowing expansion. The same would go for Brazil. The downside is in the future these nations could all have major labor shortages, but by then more advanced manufacturing and agriculture technology should make their economies far less manpower intensive. Africa would be left alone, AIDS will take care of that issue.

There's probably some other nations, which also need radical controls, but quite a lot of nations have no population problem and can cope with any increase, assuming there not losing population already.

Montcalm wrote:Hypothetical scenario: Someone give you the job of regulating the human population on earth,so on the 6 billion+ humans how many would you kill and how much will be left after?

Seems to be doing a good enough job policing itself. Africa will surely wipe itself out without any need for intevention. Asia and South America might need to be whipped into shape regarding some matters, as they won't be wiping themselves out through disease (although it still manages to run rampant).

I suppose, given the job description, I have special powers to help me in that job, right? I think I would most likely go around searching for people who are fit to be leaders, then choose them to be leaders of humanity. Probably.

No one really. I would encourage birth control methods and condoms of course.. but I would be afraid to limit population control a la Brave New World. Why?

Because those who can revolutionize the world are random. Who am I to dictate the source of genetic variability and genius? Sure, we can create a race of supermen and women, who are all descended from neurosurgeons and nobel prize winners. But, society also needs a lower society, and every so often we get something special. And it's that random chance I'm afraid to screw up.. if that makes any sense.

Trytostaydead wrote: Because those who can revolutionize the world are random. Who am I to dictate the source of genetic variability and genius? Sure, we can create a race of supermen and women, who are all descended from neurosurgeons and nobel prize winners. But, society also needs a lower society, and every so often we get something special. And it's that random chance I'm afraid to screw up.. if that makes any sense.

What does all that have to do with the logical fact that each couple should have about two children average, to ensure that the human species won't outgrow the available Earth resources?

*confused* why was my plan nazi? I wasn't going for purity, just... people pulling their own weight. Maybe I should have thought out my post a bit more, and phrased stuff differently... ah well.

If I did it another way, I'd force people to move from the extremely populated regions into other areas. There's all kinds of space to be used, and it CAN be done with our current level of technology...

Colonel Olrik wrote: What does all that have to do with the logical fact that each couple should have about two children average, to ensure that the human species won't outgrow the available Earth resources?

Have you ever read Ender's Game? Third!!

Eh.. the only real responsibility should be with the parents. If they can comfortably support and raise more than two children then by all means. If they can't and can't keep their damn legs closed.. maybe something should be done.

But what I was just suggesting was the idea that people who revolutionize or help revolutionize the world sometimes come from the unlikliest of places. Yes, there may be a day when we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.. but if we were a "logical" society we'd probably only grow by increments as opposed to bursts.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:*confused* why was my plan nazi?

You wrote:

I would kill those incapable of giving back to society. Retarded folks, those with birth defects, those kind of people. Then I would kill those who REFUSE to give back to society, and instead just suck on its collective teat (those on welfare!).

There, that's why you're the nazi.

I'm partially with MRN on this one. I hate people that aren't willing to work for a living and just bitch about how much their life sucks and how the government is screwing them. Unless you are mentally deficient, there is not way you can't find work in the US. But instead of killing everyone, just sterilize a lot of people. Let them die off and condense the world into megatropolises, complete with massive skyscrapers and beautiful suburbs. Use mag-rails for commuting to industrial centers outside of the nice cities. And use shifts of people for raw material mining. Pretty much a benevolent dictator state with me at the head.

There are quite a few problems that need to be addressed before we can reach a Zero Population Growth world.

1. Places like India and China that have age old preferences for boys over girls end up with an imbalance in the age-sex pyramid when the number of children are limited either through choice or coercen. These cultural ideas have to be smashed.

2. Nobody I know has figured out how to grow and maintain an economy with a population that is stable. Shrinking or stagnant populations present big problems to modern economies and programs. Once I wondered if that is why droids are so prevelant in societies like Star Wars. They have a good lifestyle that lends itself to small families. Droids help increase production/ivity.

3. Obviously I would need some sweeping powers. But with each action there is always the unforseen consequences of what I do. A crystal ball would be nice, but is not a reality.

4. The status of women has to be raised in every country on Earth where it is not at the level of Western countries. Women who are on par or close to par with men, will naturally lower the amount of children they have. This would require imposing values on cultures that may not appreciate it.

Trytostaydead wrote: Eh.. the only real responsibility should be with the parents. If they can comfortably support and raise more than two children then by all means. If they can't and can't keep their damn legs closed.. maybe something should be done.

No, you're wrong. In 1st world countries even "poor" families can raise many kids without major financial problems (meaning they have a roof and food to eat). There must be some social responsability directing how the population grows. In the west this is usually made not by force, but by giving benefits to small families (if the goal is to diminish the birthrate) or big families (if the goal is the opposite)

Colonel Olrik wrote:

I would kill those incapable of giving back to society. Retarded folks, those with birth defects, those kind of people. Then I would kill those who REFUSE to give back to society, and instead just suck on its collective teat (those on welfare!).

There, that's why you're the nazi.

Okay then... lemme rephrase that a bit:

If you can not provide for yourself and help society in some way (in other words, have a job), you die. Simple as that. No welfare, nothing. Of course, employment qualifications would have to be lowered a bit, but everyone must be able to be a working member of society by working. After thinking about it, a lot of the people who would die in my above statement might be able to work doing something useful, so I retract that part. But the general idea is still there...

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: Unless you are mentally deficient, there is not way you can't find work in the US.

The problem in the US is not finding work, but finding work that pays enough to make a decent living. That is quite a challenge right now.

However, if you wanna sterilize people who have 8 kids and no means of support, Im not going to stop you.

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:I'm partially with MRN on this one. I hate people that aren't willing to work for a living and just bitch about how much their life sucks and how the government is screwing them. Unless you are mentally deficient, there is not way you can't find work in the US.

And if you're a 40 years old man with no education and just sacked from the factory which have been your job since the age of 16, you're bond to feel very inadequate. I hate people who look down to those less fortunate and immediatly think all their problems are really their fault. Specially when those people are likely to be rich kids which have always had access to everything good in life.

But instead of killing everyone, just sterilize a lot of people. Let them die off and condense the world into megatropolises, complete with massive skyscrapers and beautiful suburbs. Use mag-rails for commuting to industrial centers outside of the nice cities. And use shifts of people for raw material mining. Pretty much a benevolent dictator state with me at the head.

Not funny. Posting stuff like "I'd kill all retards", I'd sterilize all poor", etc seldom is.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote: If you can not provide for yourself and help society in some way (in other words, have a job), you die. Simple as that. No welfare, nothing. Of course, employment qualifications would have to be lowered a bit, but everyone must be able to be a working member of society by working. After thinking about it, a lot of the people who would die in my above statement might be able to work doing something useful, so I retract that part. But the general idea is still there...

So, instead of death by direct action you think the incapable deserve death by inaction. That's precisely the same, with the difference you're leaving Mother Nature do your dirty job. People who cannot find a job have the right to exist. Because they have children, because they can learn to better themselves if given the chance (something a well thought of welfare does). Because they are humans.

Colonel Olrik wrote:So, instead of death by direct action you think the incapable deserve death by inaction. That's precisely the same, with the difference you're leaving Mother Nature do your dirty job.

No, the people are doing my dirty job themselves. If they can not be working members of society, they do not live in it. They don't have to die, they just can not benefit from the work of society unless they give something in return. If they want, they can go live in exile away from everything, they might find a way to survive.

People who cannot find a job have the right to exist. Because they have children, because they can learn to better themselves if given the chance (which a well thought of welfare scheme gives). Because they are humans.

I partly agree with you on the children part. When you have a family, you get a little more slack, because toddlers tend not to be able to pay the bills. But those that make no effort to provide for themselves (and their children) may not benefit from society, as I said earlier.

I need to sit down and think this out completely, but you get the gist of what I'm saying, correct?

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote: No, the people are doing my dirty job themselves. If they can not be working members of society, they do not live in it. They don't have to die, they just can not benefit from the work of society unless they give something in return. If they want, they can go live in exile away from everything, they might find a way to survive.

So, the unemployed, ill and mentally deficient people of your example are expected to pack up and go into the Wild, maybe to survive as hunters-collectors, nevermind the fact that nobody has taught them the necessary survival skills of our ancestors. And that's not killing them indirectly, obviously.

There's a big difference between the confortable life you can have if successfully employed and being given the minimal to survive if you cannot find a job (because of illness, lack or skills or whatever). That usually provides enough motivation to work, together with a welfare planned to help people better their lifes.

I partly agree with you on the children part. When you have a family, you get a little more slack, because toddlers tend not to be able to pay the bills. But those that make no effort to provide for themselves (and their children) may not benefit from society, as I said earlier.

Unless you count raising your kids and help them to build a better life than you had as benefitial to society. Of course, that requires a minimum of money. Money that 1st world countries can easily provide at no great cost, compared with the social cost that would arise from a "let them die" situation.

Colonel Olrik wrote:*snip*

I'm not prepared to fully argue this out right now, so I retract my statements. Maybe I will find a way to completely work this out at some point, but for now I will just say they suck.