S
Dear God man don't encourage him. All he'll need to do to do is find a Loeb to his Leopold and were all in trouble.
This thread is freaking disturbing. That is all.
ETA: ::Looks up.:: SEEEEEEEEE? This is why we can't have nice things. heh.
Last edited:
Then get off t'internets and finely tune yourself into a super sleuth killing machine. You could be so successful nobody would even notice what you were doing until 1/3 of the entire population was gone.
S
Shai Gar
Alternatives to killing:
Promoting super high density high-rise self-contained cities (all in one building), with zero carbon emision, recycled water, etc. There would basically just be some internet cables and radio antennae coming out of it.
Promoting super high density high-rise self-contained cities (all in one building), with zero carbon emision, recycled water, etc. There would basically just be some internet cables and radio antennae coming out of it.
It works in Sim City, but in real life people won't stay cooped up in those things. They still want to travel, and then you get said contained humanity leaking out again. But, if we could get them to stay inside for a long enough period of time, we could attach rocket boosters and jettison them off the planet! :lol:
Population reduction achieved!
S
Shai Gar
You always get the Ewan McGregor types who would ruin it for everyone.
S
Shai Gar
I'm posting this as a follow up to this post. Shai Gar believes genocide is necessary. I believe something similar will happen anyways, and I hope to mitigate it. I'm sure we're over populated, but I think there may be a way to bring our population down somewhat gradually, rather and selectively kill people. I think most people would rather die anyways than face extreme change (and I mean EXTREME!). The choice will still be theirs at least.
Why do we need to flourish? If you expect us to flourish then you are still putting us before every other species on this planet. Whom we depend on. We flourish at their expense.
Funny how you're supportive xNTPs and the xNFJs, but you want the decision to be in the hands of an INTJ. I guess you figure that would be more xNFJ females for you to harass after all this shit goes down.
We're susceptible to the same population dynamics as any other species. We've temporarily found a way around it by throwing more energy at our food production than our food actually provides. We use energy from oil (a finite resource) for planting, harvesting, pesticides, and transportation of our food. There's actually very little actual calories of human labor that go into producing our food. Much of our food energy comes from liberally applying oil at an energy loss.
You could say that overpopulation began with agriculture, which allowed us to grow our population beyond what the ecosystem would naturally provide. We've destroyed entire ecosystems and have replaced them with monocultural crops that provide high energy returns (grains). There were problems with this from the very beginning. Any monoculture is susceptible to pests, disease, and failure. This is the cause of the famines of the past, and evidence that we are over-populated. Our population is above what a healthy ecosystem can handle, and the only way to maintain it is through monocultures that provide high energy returns, which are maintained with oil as previously stated.
Population = Energy Availability
Food = Energy
Even strict regulations would require energy to enforce them. There will be a point where it will be a net loss (ie the cost of extracting the oil to supplement our agriculture costs more than the energy it actually provides), the regulations will be unnecessary and population will take care of itself.
Hehe, I gotta agree with this to some extent. Women's lib is a start, but there are underlying factors as well.
The best way to limit reproduction is to limit the food that is available. Population cannot grow above the amount of food available. It applies to other species, it applies to us. If food is expensive, then people will buy it at the expense of other things because it is necessary. It will also limit the amount of food that is available to people. People are less likely to have children if they can't afford to take care of them. Sure it sounds like a bunch of conservative crap (welfare is bad!), but welfare is necessary to keep our economy running. If we didn't supplement the poor's income, much of the crap that drives our economy would never sell. (As an aside, I have no interest in keeping our economy running).
Industrialization is just expediting the process.
We've already been domesticated.
Genetic diversity is important. Especially in agriculture. You mention the Irish potato famine, and people still fail to recognize the importance of genetic diversity. Not just in crops but ourselves as well. Swine flu is problem because of many genetically similar pigs being held in close quarters. Our cities also keep us in close quarters. The high density of animals and our own dense population allows diseases to easily jump species (zoonotic disease).
The industrialized economies require more energy and thus more money to raise children, and so people have less children at a later age. You have to raise the children on a fairly high budget, plus you have to save the money to educate them so they can take care of themselves (because anything larger than a nuclear family is just wrong in our society). The people in an industrialized society require a very large amount of resources to sustain their lifestyle, making them much more destructive than many of the more 'populous' countries.
In many of the third world countries it's a boon to have many children, especially with globalization. It means more labor to bring more money in. If you're close to starvation it's a good chance to take. It's really the only thing you can invest in.
Why do we need to flourish? If you expect us to flourish then you are still putting us before every other species on this planet. Whom we depend on. We flourish at their expense.
Funny how you're supportive xNTPs and the xNFJs, but you want the decision to be in the hands of an INTJ. I guess you figure that would be more xNFJ females for you to harass after all this shit goes down.
We're susceptible to the same population dynamics as any other species. We've temporarily found a way around it by throwing more energy at our food production than our food actually provides. We use energy from oil (a finite resource) for planting, harvesting, pesticides, and transportation of our food. There's actually very little actual calories of human labor that go into producing our food. Much of our food energy comes from liberally applying oil at an energy loss.
You could say that overpopulation began with agriculture, which allowed us to grow our population beyond what the ecosystem would naturally provide. We've destroyed entire ecosystems and have replaced them with monocultural crops that provide high energy returns (grains). There were problems with this from the very beginning. Any monoculture is susceptible to pests, disease, and failure. This is the cause of the famines of the past, and evidence that we are over-populated. Our population is above what a healthy ecosystem can handle, and the only way to maintain it is through monocultures that provide high energy returns, which are maintained with oil as previously stated.
Population = Energy Availability
Food = Energy
Even strict regulations would require energy to enforce them. There will be a point where it will be a net loss (ie the cost of extracting the oil to supplement our agriculture costs more than the energy it actually provides), the regulations will be unnecessary and population will take care of itself.
Hehe, I gotta agree with this to some extent. Women's lib is a start, but there are underlying factors as well.
The best way to limit reproduction is to limit the food that is available. Population cannot grow above the amount of food available. It applies to other species, it applies to us. If food is expensive, then people will buy it at the expense of other things because it is necessary. It will also limit the amount of food that is available to people. People are less likely to have children if they can't afford to take care of them. Sure it sounds like a bunch of conservative crap (welfare is bad!), but welfare is necessary to keep our economy running. If we didn't supplement the poor's income, much of the crap that drives our economy would never sell. (As an aside, I have no interest in keeping our economy running).
Industrialization is just expediting the process.
We've already been domesticated.
Genetic diversity is important. Especially in agriculture. You mention the Irish potato famine, and people still fail to recognize the importance of genetic diversity. Not just in crops but ourselves as well. Swine flu is problem because of many genetically similar pigs being held in close quarters. Our cities also keep us in close quarters. The high density of animals and our own dense population allows diseases to easily jump species (zoonotic disease).
The industrialized economies require more energy and thus more money to raise children, and so people have less children at a later age. You have to raise the children on a fairly high budget, plus you have to save the money to educate them so they can take care of themselves (because anything larger than a nuclear family is just wrong in our society). The people in an industrialized society require a very large amount of resources to sustain their lifestyle, making them much more destructive than many of the more 'populous' countries.
In many of the third world countries it's a boon to have many children, especially with globalization. It means more labor to bring more money in. If you're close to starvation it's a good chance to take. It's really the only thing you can invest in.
Dude this is messed up.
If a drastic reduction in human population is necessary for the earth's survival, it will happen on its own, if evolution is true.
If the universe and everything included in it (all physical things, earth, and humans) are created by a superior being or beings, earth's ultimate survival is guaranteed if that survival is critical to the universe and that being or beings.
Our intervention in the form that this belief suggests goes against fundemental ethics in many ways, which could be fleshed out if necessary.
Humans consistently make decisions of the magnitude you are suggesting in good faith and have found the decision was the wrong one much later in time.
Ultimately, this thinking does not hold up under intellectual scrutiny.
If a drastic reduction in human population is necessary for the earth's survival, it will happen on its own, if evolution is true.
If the universe and everything included in it (all physical things, earth, and humans) are created by a superior being or beings, earth's ultimate survival is guaranteed if that survival is critical to the universe and that being or beings.
Our intervention in the form that this belief suggests goes against fundemental ethics in many ways, which could be fleshed out if necessary.
Humans consistently make decisions of the magnitude you are suggesting in good faith and have found the decision was the wrong one much later in time.
Ultimately, this thinking does not hold up under intellectual scrutiny.
I went to china last year on a humanitarian aide trip. we did a bunch of clinics in inner mongolia. Point being, these people, the minorities, are actually allowed more than one child. They need the children to man the farms since they don't have money for tractors/western farm equipment. They will soon outnumber the "han" chinese since the "han" have the restrictions (and that makes little sense to me bc the "han" are the "superior" race, but whatever).
Anyhow, we had a 24 hour train ride from Beij'ing to our Destination, and I saw a handful of villages the whole time. The rest of the time . . . empty fields. China has a lot of empty space! Their overpopulation is in their cities. Once you get out of the city, the population is exponentially reduced.
Not sure where I was going with that . . . I think its time for this tired texter/blogger/whatever to log off and saw a few . . .
I agree, the planet indeed has lots of empty space. It is also true in the U.S. And that's a good thing. Population density can be a good thing, minimizing impact to the planet at large.
On the other hand, if that population density proves to be harmful to the planet at large, then it should be altered, and there are many alternatives to altering that without actually taking human lives.
S
Shai Gar