ForumsWEPRIs the world screwed enough that it should be destroyed?

65 15150
roydotor2000
offline
roydotor2000
341 posts
Peasant

From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.

  • 65 Replies
Skeleton_Pilot
offline
Skeleton_Pilot
1,365 posts
Jester

Now, now... surely we can come up with better solutions to our world's problems than destroying the planet? Even if you've lost all faith in humanity, keep in mind that we're not the only species who exists on this planet anyway... =)

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,749 posts
Grand Duke

I would argue that however bad the situation is, destruction is never an option. Noone would gain anything from it. Obviously.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,832 posts
Scribe

Who would benefit from our annihilation anyway?

xeano321
offline
xeano321
3,150 posts
Blacksmith

I don't feel the world is in THAT bad of shape. Justin Bieber may be the issue, but I don't want to die over him.

Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,177 posts
Blacksmith

From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.

I think the world is in a very bad way with everything going on (When you consider we probably know very little compared to what is actually happening) but no I don't believe it should be destroyed. My reasoning is 100% selfish. The world may suck but my life is amazing and I wouldn't trade my fiance, family, friends and puppies for anything.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,934 posts
Bard

No, but about 95% of the people in the world are pigs and should be "destroyed", not the earth itself. Only about 5% of the world population (probably less) is made up of decent human beings that are actually worth being spared.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,934 posts
Bard

And fortunately none of them are poor, starving or infected, so we'll cure poverty, world hungry and disease as well. Woo.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Terry_Logic
offline
Terry_Logic
4,488 posts
Scribe

No, but about 95% of the people in the world are pigs and should be "destroyed"


There's nothing outrageous or unusual about that claim whatsoever.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,868 posts
Scribe

Yes. Obviously the only reasonable thing for us to do to better the world is to destroy it in its entirety. Bravo OP

No, but about 95% of the people in the world are pigs and should be "destroyed"


When most people say we should learn from the likes of Hitler, Mao Tsetung, Stalin, etc. they mean we shouldn't repeat history and all of that sentimental jazz.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,832 posts
Scribe

Let's assume you are insane enough to reduce global population to 350,000,000. How would they be distributed? (US population: 318,417,000)

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,867 posts
Viceroy

No.

And I think that answer suffices.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

From the things I have notice around the world, From territory disputes to social media activism, should this world be destroyed? Post opinions pls.

No, but about 95% of the people in the world are pigs and should be "destroyed", not the earth itself. Only about 5% of the world population (probably less) is made up of decent human beings that are actually worth being spared.

Who decides what people are worth saving?

And fortunately none of them are poor, starving or infected, so we'll cure poverty, world hungry and disease as well. Woo.

That's certainly the most disgusting thing I've read all day. Because some is poor, starving, or has a disease, they're pigs not worth saving? Try thinking that one over again. Although, based on the comment you made following that, I doubt that the above was an misunderstanding on my end.

Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,105 posts
Herald

Let's assume you are insane enough to reduce global population to 350,000,000. How would they be distributed? (US population: 318,417,000)

I presume what you mean to say is to reduce global population to 318,417,000 people, and I think the answer is obvious.

Who decides what people are worth saving?
People with money, obviously.

When most people say we should learn from the likes of Hitler, Mao Tsetung, Stalin, etc. they mean we shouldn't repeat history and all of that sentimental jazz.
I find it interesting you consider Stalin to be a lesser evil than Hitler and Mao when Hitler had the shortest reign and smallest death toll.

And one final thing, if we are going to destroy the world (which probably will happen), the best way is a virus non-communicable to animals but deadly to humans.http://cdn3.sbnation.com/profile_images/186786/trollface_tiny.jpg

~~~Darth Caedus

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,868 posts
Scribe

I find it interesting you consider Stalin to be a lesser evil than Hitler and Mao when Hitler had the shortest reign and smallest death toll.


What makes you thing I had them listed that way specifically?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Who decides what people are worth saving?


Why bother saving anyone? Even if you spared the right ones, why exterminate most of the species, only to have the "undesirable" populace return within the next 3-6 generations? Eugenics isn't exactly infallible, after all.

And one final thing, if we are going to destroy the world (which probably will happen), the best way is a virus non-communicable to animals but deadly to humans.


There's no direct correlation to global destruction, so no. It would also still be an immense risk to the rest of the world's species unless it produced lethal symptoms in less than a day or so, in which case it would be easy to quarantine and eliminate.
Showing 1-15 of 65