1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

STOP BREEDING OR WE’LL KILL YOU!

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 17:32
 

In my opinion, our primary concern should be solving the overpopulation crisis.
Everything else is merely a diversion. The human race has infested this planet and will soon reach an unsustainable quantum.

What to do?

Personally, if a powerful group implements genocide, of say 2 billion people, which excludes me and mine*, I can’t see myself objecting.

What say you?

*This group also includes my primary suppliers, current and potential customers and some additional stakeholders, but excludes Bankers and Priests.

From Eating Fossil Fuels by Dale Allen Pfeiffer:

We can-as a society-become aware of our dilemma and consciously make the choice not to add more people to our population. This would be the most welcome of our three options, to choose consciously and with free will to responsibly lower our population. However, this flies in the face of our biological imperative to procreate. It is further complicated by the ability of modern medicine to extend our longevity, and by the refusal of the Religious Right to consider issues of population management. And then, there is a strong business lobby to maintain a high immigration rate in order to hold down the cost of labor. Though this is probably our best choice, it is the option least likely to be chosen.

Failing to responsibly lower our population, we can force population cuts through government regulations. Is there any need to mention how distasteful this option would be? How many of us would choose to live in a world of forced sterilization and population quotas enforced under penalty of law? How easily might this lead to a culling of the population utilizing principles of eugenics?

This leaves the third choice, which itself presents an unspeakable picture of suffering and death. Should we fail to acknowledge this coming crisis and determine to deal with it, we will be faced with a die-off from which civilization may very possibly never revive. We will very likely lose more than the numbers necessary for sustainability. Under a die-off scenario, conditions will deteriorate so badly that the surviving human population would be a negligible fraction of the present population. And those survivors would suffer from the trauma of living through the death of their civilization, their neighbors, their friends and their families. Those survivors will have seen their world crushed into nothing.

 
Jeff M
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeff M
Total Posts:  1644
Joined  08-10-2010
 
 
 
13 January 2013 20:26
 
BigNose - 13 January 2013 04:32 PM

Personally, if a powerful group implements genocide, of say 2 billion people, which excludes me and mine*, I can’t see myself objecting.

If you mean that, you need help.  If you are joking, it is really bad taste.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 20:47
 
Jeff M - 13 January 2013 07:26 PM
BigNose - 13 January 2013 04:32 PM

Personally, if a powerful group implements genocide, of say 2 billion people, which excludes me and mine*, I can’t see myself objecting.

If you mean that, you need help.  If you are joking, it is really bad taste.

Ok. Let’s assume I really do mean it. What help are you proposing? Help with what? Are you proposing to help me sleepwalk into the greatest threat to humanity in all history?
Do you have a more humane solution than mine?
Let’s hear it.

And, for the record, I’m not joking. This is the most serious issue facing us this century. If you don’t want your children and grandchildren fighting their neighbours, at close quarters, for survival – you need help!

Google the article “Eating Fossil Fuels” by Dale Allen Pfeiffer (I can’t post the link) and come back with your considered “help”.

Here’s a snippet:
Considering a growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population is projected to double by 2050. As the population expands, an estimated one acre of land will be lost for every person added to the U.S. population. Currently, there are 1.8 acres of farmland available to grow food for each U.S. citizen. By 2050, this will decrease to 0.6 acres. 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current dietary standards.40

Presently, only two nations on the planet are major exporters of grain: the United States and Canada.41 By 2025, it is expected that the U.S. will cease to be a food exporter due to domestic demand. The impact on the U.S. economy could be devastating, as food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually. More importantly, millions of people around the world could starve to death without U.S. food exports.42

Domestically, 34.6 million people are living in poverty as of 2002 census data.43 And this number is continuing to grow at an alarming rate. Too many of these people do not have a sufficient diet. As the situation worsens, this number will increase and the United States will witness growing numbers of starvation fatalities.

I look forward to your helpful response.

[ Edited: 13 January 2013 20:55 by BigNose]
 
Jeff M
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeff M
Total Posts:  1644
Joined  08-10-2010
 
 
 
13 January 2013 20:53
 

Maybe in another thread.  I am done with this one.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 20:56
 
Jeff M - 13 January 2013 07:53 PM

Maybe in another thread.  I am done with this one.

Pussy

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 21:06
 
BigNose - 13 January 2013 04:32 PM

Personally, if a powerful group implements genocide, of say 2 billion people, which excludes me and mine*, I can’t see myself objecting.

Oh, just so we’re clear. I would certainly object to any suffering caused.
It’s the non-existence of people (principle) I don’t object to. I’m a realist, not a monster.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
13 January 2013 21:17
 
BigNose - 13 January 2013 08:06 PM
BigNose - 13 January 2013 04:32 PM

Personally, if a powerful group implements genocide, of say 2 billion people, which excludes me and mine*, I can’t see myself objecting.

Oh, just so we’re clear. I would certainly object to any suffering caused.
It’s the non-existence of people (principle) I don’t object to. I’m a realist, not a monster.

The only just way to do what you propose is by lot, with no exclusions.  So, if you and the members of your family each have a 2 in 7 chance of being exterminated (to get rid of 2 billion out of 7 billion), would you still be for it?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17780
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
13 January 2013 21:24
 
BigNose - 13 January 2013 08:06 PM
BigNose - 13 January 2013 04:32 PM

Personally, if a powerful group implements genocide, of say 2 billion people, which excludes me and mine*, I can’t see myself objecting.

Oh, just so we’re clear. I would certainly object to any suffering caused.
It’s the non-existence of people (principle) I don’t object to. I’m a realist, not a monster.

We won’t do it that way, we will do it the slow painful way and consider ourselves great for doing so.

 
 
saralynn
 
Avatar
 
 
saralynn
Total Posts:  9287
Joined  29-01-2010
 
 
 
13 January 2013 21:46
 

Most of the population growth is in poor countries in which people count on children to increase the family income.  Industrialized countries aren’t even replacing themselves. 

Seems like the solution is a fairer distribution of wealth and scientific advances in food production.  Surely, if we can figure out how to split atoms, we can also figure out how to combine them to make nutritious concoctions. 

I think you are being dramatic for rhetorical purposes, but you do sound rather creepy.  Please don’t see the movie Soylent Green.  You might be inspired by it.

If it’s any consolation, most of the things I worried about in my youth didn’t occur.  We didn’t have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, millions of people didn’t die from famine in the 1970’s as Erlich predicted in “The Population Bomb, and the “Revolution” didn’t occur between the peeps and the facist pigs.  Also, disco did not destroy music.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 21:58
 
Ecurb Noselrub - 13 January 2013 08:17 PM

The only just way to do what you propose is by lot, with no exclusions.  So, if you and the members of your family each have a 2 in 7 chance of being exterminated (to get rid of 2 billion out of 7 billion), would you still be for it?

Being fortunate in where we live and the resources available to us, I’d rate our chances of survival greater than 5/7 in a civil/European conflict, so no.
However, if the goal is to minimise any suffering in achieving the numbers required, entire family trees (as far as possible) will need to be targeted. Thus, reducing grief and grudge. So really, the lottery option is a non-runner.

[ Edited: 13 January 2013 22:13 by BigNose]
 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 22:05
 
GAD - 13 January 2013 08:24 PM

We won’t do it that way, we will do it the slow painful way and consider ourselves great for doing so.

There must be chemical options, which eliminate instantly and painlessly. This isn’t a fight for survival scenario, more population management – with a smile.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 22:12
 
saralynn - 13 January 2013 08:46 PM

Most of the population growth is in poor countries in which people count on children to increase the family income.  Industrialized countries aren’t even replacing themselves. 

Seems like the solution is a fairer distribution of wealth and scientific advances in food production.  Surely, if we can figure out how to split atoms, we can also figure out how to combine them to make nutritious concoctions. 

I think you are being dramatic for rhetorical purposes, but you do sound rather creepy.  Please don’t see the movie Soylent Green.  You might be inspired by it.

If it’s any consolation, most of the things I worried about in my youth didn’t occur.  We didn’t have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, millions of people didn’t die from famine in the 1970’s as Erlich predicted in “The Population Bomb, and the “Revolution” didn’t occur between the peeps and the facist pigs.  Also, disco did not destroy music.

Yea, I’m basically creepier this year. Decided to become more militant.
You’re population stats are not correct. If you have a source, please post. (Stats for your patch of Earth are above)
Yes, the Russians loved their children too, however, may I remind you, video killed the radio star.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 22:21
 

dum, dum, dum . . . . In my mind and in my car, we can’t rewind we’ve gone to far - Oh-a-aho oh, Oh-a-aho oh

Yeah, that’s the one. And now it’s in your head too!

 
saralynn
 
Avatar
 
 
saralynn
Total Posts:  9287
Joined  29-01-2010
 
 
 
13 January 2013 22:39
 

Nose: Yea, I’m basically creepier this year. Decided to become more militant.
You’re population stats are not correct. If you have a source, please post. (Stats for your patch of Earth are above)

Take your pick….

http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/global-cities/1223

http://www.economist.com/node/5358255

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/10/08/0813_fastest_shrinking_countries/26.htm

 
saralynn
 
Avatar
 
 
saralynn
Total Posts:  9287
Joined  29-01-2010
 
 
 
13 January 2013 22:44
 

Nose: dum, dum, dum . . . . In my mind and in my car, we can’t rewind we’ve gone to far - Oh-a-aho oh, Oh-a-aho oh

Yeah, that’s the one. And now it’s in your head too!

Who cares about Radio star. Video killed reading books.  If I were young, that is what I would be worrying about.

 
BigNose
 
Avatar
 
 
BigNose
Total Posts:  525
Joined  20-10-2012
 
 
 
13 January 2013 23:11
 
saralynn - 13 January 2013 09:39 PM

Nose: Yea, I’m basically creepier this year. Decided to become more militant.
You’re population stats are not correct. If you have a source, please post. (Stats for your patch of Earth are above)

Take your pick….

http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/global-cities/1223

http://www.economist.com/node/5358255

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/10/08/0813_fastest_shrinking_countries/26.htm

Yeah, a cursory glance shows emigration as the primary factor affecting these figures, which you’d expect with overpopulation.

Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050
Russia: -0.6%; -22%
Belarus -0.6%; -12%
Bulgaria -0.5%; -34%
Latvia -0.5%; -23%
Lithuania -0.4%; -15%
Hungary -0.3%; -11%
Romania -0.2%; -29%
Estonia -0.2%; -23%
Moldova -0.2%; -21%
Croatia -0.2%; -14%
Germany -0.2%; -9%
Czech Republic -0.1%; -8%
Japan 0%; -21%
Poland 0%; -17%
Slovakia 0%; -12%
Austria 0%; 8% increase
Italy 0%; -5%
Slovenia 0%; -5%
Greece 0%; -4%
These people are still on the planet, aggressive mobile consumers competing for resources with you.
Have a look here http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

The US’s total population is expected to cross the 400 million mark in 2051, reaching 420.3 million in 2060. What was it when you were a kid riding your stallion fence?

Oh, and another thing. Millions of people did die of starvation throughout the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and naughty’s. Famine’s pretty much a permanent fixture now. The demographics may not have matched those proposed by Erlich (whoever he was), but I’ll concede your point about reading books!

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›