Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.
- 257 Replies
Here is an article to show that melting the ice caps would cost more than WWII (2-20 trillion or something like that). Also, melting the ice caps is a very noticeable problem, compared to racial genocide anyway. There is genocide occurring right now, so yeah. Are we done with this topic? :S
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a good example of showing just how much Nuclear Weapons we've stockpiled up in the cold war.
If your argument is that the most cost-efficient way is the most humane way, you're contradicting your original post regarding nuclear radiation.
Actually, the article states that the ice caps, melting at their current rate, take "an economic toll of between $2.4 trillion and $24 trillion." That's what it costs the globe for the ice caps melting in economic loss.
Not sure if I'm missing something here..but you just basically stated the long version of "how much it costs".
. Rather than wait for it to fall apart to kill the people inside, you decide to demolish the entire thing at once and assume some will survive.
Alright good we are back on the genocide talk I like this
Or would you prefer to, say, manually kill X number of people without the rest of the people stopping you by fighting back?
Should be easy enough.
You were looking for the most cost-effective way. Economic loss and economic investments for an end-all-be-all ultimatum are the same. Even at that, why does money matter in the first place?
For your example:
1. The icecaps can/will not be demolished all at once.
2. If the icecaps melted entirely, no one would survive. Hence our fragile ecosystems.
3. The "no one has ever done this before" excuse is uncredible because we know what happens to enraged ecosystems, and we know what happens to and because of melted icecaps. Stats help us predict. Granted, environmental science is not something I claim familiarity with, but I am aware that gauging from evidence is a reasonable thing to do.
Or would you prefer to, say, manually kill X number of people without the rest of the people stopping you by fighting back?[/quote]
[quote]Should be easy enough.
Pretty much. Ask Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, the Hutu...
Eliminating an entire race is obviously going to reduce populations long-term. Melting all the icecaps will kill every human in existence, so ya.
The problem, though, is that after WWII (referring back to the Nazi example)...
...Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, the Hutu...
And Mao as well, I suppose.
The problem, though, is that after WWII (referring back to the Nazi example), we experienced a "baby boom," where all the survivors came home and "celebrated." It didn't succeed in thoroughly reducing the population...wait...
1) Not sure how to break this to you but....the Genocidal acts during WWII were not against Americans.
2) As Devoid pointed out, there are many more genocide examples. He missed my boy Mao, though.
Question: Are we referring to immediate, temporary population reductions or long-term plans that will keep populations low? I assumed it was the latter.
I like both
Well, he wished that it hopefully be humane.....You could I guess, sterilize an entire group and then wait for them to snuff it naturally.
By forcing people to use contraceptives (how would you do that?), or through a more discreet method (some kind of injection)? Keep in mind that video games are no longer being used as evidence.
Chemical castration? We don't really have a perfectly harmless method so far. Vasectomies maybe.
Also remember that the population on Earth is, what, somewhere in the billions right? You'd have to apply that to people one-at-a-time, with or without consent, as many people would not be interested in getting a vasectomy.
OP doesn't specify how much he wants it to be lowered by. So far our best feasible current option is still the boring route of education on contraceptives, the earth's resources, blah blah blah.
Keep in mind that the OP states that the method used just be humane.
By whose standards of humane?
I believe I asked this before..
Um...yes, I am aware. But it was still a result of WWII.
It's getting a little confusing, though. I'm not sure if we're working with the same goal in mind.
Killing people, right?
Also remember that the population on Earth is, what, somewhere in the billions right?
At least 12 million.
Can we agree that that's a starting point for a standard of "humane" for the discussion?
Of course. And the way I interpret that is different than the way you do. I view the gladiator fights as humane, you do not.
See what I'm getting at?
The "baby boom" of soldiers coming home did not cause WWII. It was a result of the end of WWII. Oh, wait. I misread that on page 28. "Cause" is the correct word.
I'm talking about the genocide. The "baby boom" is completely unrelated to that.
For example, short-term being nuking several countries (instant drop, but population will eventually grow back) and long-term being slowing human reproduction (slow drop, but population will stop growing altogether depending on the limits).
Yeah I like these both.
In the entire world? No, it's definitely over a billion.
I was right. At least 12 million.
We've been over this one. A nuclear holocaust is not humane.
I think it is.
WWIII is going to involve nuclear weapons. It's inevitable.
Get out of here Nostradamus
I view the gladiator fights as humane
you know gladiators were just slaves right? even those high classed once that won 20 fights are still just slaves... are slaves humane? can we start the VOC again and transport africans to america?
WWIII is going to involve nuclear weapons. It's inevitable.
no way, if 1 is crazy enough to fire one then they will get a load back on their arses. firing a nuke is just suicide for your country. no victory at all.
North Korea, on the other hand...I don't understand North Korea. I apologize for not knowing the history,
Israel is to Palestine as South Korea is to North Korea, except with bigger threats and less actions.
but I wouldn't bet a dollar on them NOT using nuclear weapons if and when they get them.
They've already got plenty of nukes and still only threaten so far. Granted, these are mid-range missiles that might reach as far as Japan. Anything bigger hasn't been confirmed.
You must be logged in to post a reply!