Time to cull humanity? Who's in favour
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
culling is only a very temporary solution and no one wants to be part of the population that is culled. Fair and enforced birth control is the only sustainable way to go IMO.
Also, telling east Asia that that consuming endangered animals parts won't help their sexual performance or cure cancer might help prevent some organisms form going extinct.
Also, telling east Asia that that consuming endangered animals parts won't help their sexual performance or cure cancer might help prevent some organisms form going extinct.
just........what
The Earth could sustain more than double the current global population but don't expect a lavish, western lifestyle, for all that so many of us here are use too, at least with current methods. Advancements in technology have allowed us to boom and we will of course continue to do so. More efficient agricultural technology that yields more food for example. There are enough resources on this rock but we need to have the knowhow to utilize them so science is the answer!
If we don't then we'll just trot along on until we reach a breaking point and many die in a fight for resources as history has shown many times.
If we don't then we'll just trot along on until we reach a breaking point and many die in a fight for resources as history has shown many times.
Not sure what to make of this thread really.
Population does need to be controlled, but I don't think realistically anyone would impose new methods of doing so. (Do note that I acknowledge China's one child policy)
No one would really agree to it and ultimately I wonder whether anyone would actively endorse such a policy.
Population does need to be controlled, but I don't think realistically anyone would impose new methods of doing so. (Do note that I acknowledge China's one child policy)
No one would really agree to it and ultimately I wonder whether anyone would actively endorse such a policy.
Funnily enough... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22146456
So... would it help if we send the majority of humanity away from Earth?
Even if it was in their own best (long term) interests, few would agree to it. Which is why you need a controlling hand to make it mandatory.
People always want to make their own choices, even if the weight of evidence suggests they make bad choices. And often people are incapable of understanding the consequences of their choices, or just don't want to.
Poor people choose to breed; 'westerners' choose to consume and exploit.
As much as I enjoy looking down at paupers, the state-educated and the new citizenry, it simply isn't as clear as what you suggest. A controlling hand would never work (see Lord Acton's quote re: absolute power). I agree that often people are incapable of understanding the consequences of their choices or neglect to do so.
However I'd suggest that it is perhaps not as simple as poor people (perhaps clearer terminology is required for this) choosing to breed. It is I'm told human instinct to breed. As indeed it is mammalian instinct so to do.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 698
No need for any genocide of any kind. The world will manage itself - a virus, lack of water supplies or whatever will happen in the future that will decimate a significant portion of the World population - famine and the list goes on and on.
The way we are going through resources as it is and with an ever growing population the planet isn't sustainable for all of us, doesn't take a genius to realise at some point disaster will strike on a scale currently unimaginable.
The way we are going through resources as it is and with an ever growing population the planet isn't sustainable for all of us, doesn't take a genius to realise at some point disaster will strike on a scale currently unimaginable.
You are using hundred of times more resources than the average African the mere fact you are posting on an internet forum shows this), if you are so keen on genocide why don't you volunteer first and remove yourself from the population, saving resources for hundreds of other people on the planter that are not so greedy.
Oh, I see how it is, you want to live your lavish life style and blame someone else.
Q F T
Maybe the best and most accurate post I've seen on these forums for quite some time.
I don't know why you claim to know what resources I'm using. Could be posting from work for all you know.
But I think you'll find I haven't directly caused any decrease in animal populations recently. I haven't been involved in deforestation lately. I haven't had any kids. I don't even have a car. In fact I'm an anti-consumerist. I very rarely buy anything non-essential.
So your post just isn't true. Besides, apart from the thread title which was a bit silly, I said I'd relocate them not kill them. And use government pressure and incentives to encourage fewer births. And designate vast areas as areas which may not be settled.
Sensible things like that.
And lastly, I have no problem with giving up some of my 'quality of life' if that sacrifice could help conserve our endangered species.
Even by being a member of the public living a very frugal life here you are consuming vastly more resources than someone sat in a self built mud hut. The fact you have a job, so could be posting from there, means you are part of the economic machine. What does your employer do/make? Unless it's magical pixie dust then it will be done using energy and materials from somewhere. And I assume you walk to work bare foot and naked?
The last point, how much would you give up, and why haven't you already? It's obviously important to you... so... do your bit?
Species come and go. Many, many species have been wiped out because another critter was a bit hungry. I find it mildly saddening that there are multi million pound campaigns to save the <insert fluffy animal here> whilst there are huge problems with our society and the rest of the world which need attention. Who will be there to have a fundraiser for homo sapiens?
Edit: Before the flames consume me, I'll clarify. I have nothing against conservation and protection of endangered species. These are fine and noble endeavours.
Last edited:
You are using a computer, you probably own a TV, live in a heated house, use electric lighting, have a has/electric cooker, have hot showers, probably own a cellphone, have a wardrobe with numerous different clothes and shoes, go on holidays here you have to fly to reach your destination, you buy foods form supermarkets that have been shipped hundreds or thousands of miles and a packaged in layers of plastic and paper wrapping, you eat lots of animals that require huge areas of land and vast amounts of water to rear.
Almost no one directly makes an animal extinct or damages the planet, but everyone indirectly causes damage. If you are using any kind of power or transportation then you are contributing towards Global Warming. The average westerners CO2 footprint is hundreds of times that of a 3rd world person.
You may think you are not a consumerist but your Co2 and resource costs are far higher than anyone in the 3rd world even if you try to live a relatively minimal life. Unless you cut yourself off from society and live off the land on a subsistence level like much of the population in the poorer countries then you impact is relatively huge. And much of the poor in the 3rd world have little choice but to use the resources they have, it is a matter of life and death whether they caught down a tree in the rainforest, fish continuously in the same rivers/ponds.
If you want to save the planet forget Africa, start in your home town! See if you can lobby to get the street lighting turned off after midnight, or build additional bike lanes and bus routes, install electric car charging station, increase the local farmers market.
FYI, I'm not some hippy and I am very guilty of being a consumerist.
