ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

290 32681
thecode11
offline
thecode11
242 posts
505

Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.

  • 290 Replies
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Eliminating an entire race is obviously going to reduce populations long-term. Melting all the icecaps will kill every human in existence, so ya.

Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,723 posts
3,620

The problem, though, is that after WWII (referring back to the Nazi example)...


I repeat:
...Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, the Hutu...

And Mao as well, I suppose.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

Eliminating an entire race is obviously going to reduce populations long-term. Melting all the icecaps will kill every human in existence, so ya.


Well, if it works.Assuming it does work, then yes it would reduce it long-term. Keep in mind that the OP states that the method used just be humane. How could one humanely exterminate a race? It just might start another world war, which would lead to a lot of unintended casualties, and you'd be killing a lot of civilians anyway. Then again, any method would have civilian casualties.

I feel less humane every time I post here o_o This is one of the most disturbing arguments I think I've ever had.

Not sure how to break this to you but....the Genocidal acts during WWII were not against Americans.


Um...yes, I am aware. But it was still a result of WWII.

I like both


It's getting a little confusing, though. I'm not sure if we're working with the same goal in mind. Either way, my above question to Sal still stands.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

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.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

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.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

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.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

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.

Personally, I think "we could research it" is a fair argument. A way to cause infertility through an injection could be discovered, as it's not being researched right now (not publicly, anyway). I wouldn't rule it out. If an idea has a plausible basis, I believe "research might find a viable solution" supports the idea.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

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.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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.


*Cause

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.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

By whose standards of humane?
I believe I asked this before..


That's true. I don't think I gave an answer. How about the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition? Humane is defined as:
1. marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals. I know this varies depending on the person, but a few generalities can be made. For example, I think we can agree that attacking an unarmed human with an electric drill to the eye is not humane.
2. characterized by or tending to broad humanistic culture.

Humanistic:
1. a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good

Can we agree that that's a starting point for a standard of "humane" for the discussion?

*Cause


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.

Killing people, right?


Overall, yes, but in a short-term or long-term sense? 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).

At least 12 million.


In the entire world? No, it's definitely over a billion.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

The most humane way... Make the death penalty more common, for example, any count of homicide that is proven to be without a shadow of a doubt should be met with it.


Which would be criminals currently serving time. I don't think we have THAT many convicted murderers.

Also, recreate Gladiatorial games for people who need money, are prisoners, or just wanted to see how it felt to battle.


That...well. Hmm. Not sure if it fits "humane," but it does allow people to choose. Actually, I think Rome had a whole division of gladiator contests devoted to criminals or captures soldiers.

Next, elevate the stakes in casinos, to where you could bet your life.


What would the means of execution be? Being sent to the gladiator zone? I wouldn't be surprised if people took the offer, considering how powerful greed can be.

Finally, if all else fails, ignite World War Three.


We've been over this one. A nuclear holocaust is not humane.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

I never said nuclear...


WWIII is going to involve nuclear weapons. It's inevitable. That's all politicians and armies talk about anymore; other countries obtaining nuclear weapons.

It would still help.


Well. True.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

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
partydevil
online
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,270

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.
Showing 271-285 of 290