ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

257 34190
thecode11
offline
thecode11
241 posts
Peasant

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

  • 257 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,155 posts
Scribe

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?

it would be doing a poor job.
but on a serious note. i can only laugh at the idea.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
7,777 posts
Viceroy

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?

There are a few things not working with that notion...

Evolution is not a planned process. Something doesn't happen in order to attain a certain state.

If homosexuality would be evolving, that would mean there's a selective pressure towards it. Problem is, the genealogic line ends at homosexual individuals (they don't produce offsprings), so any genetic influence cannot be the case (and I'm assuming here their influence on the survival of family members is low; furthermore family members might not even carry any relevant genes).

But anyway, homosexuality has always been around, not only in humans but also in many animal species. And yet we grow and grow. So as partydevil said, it would be doing a poor job :P
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,155 posts
Scribe

i was think a bit. and i was wondering if others could find a other solution for this hypothetical question.

if i was evolution itself (or the god that controls it. w/e you want) and i wanted and could make a choice of how i wanted the human population to decrease. then what would i change to make that happen?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,483 posts
Blacksmith

On a different fourm website, one person asked if homosexuality was evolution's way of decreasing the population...what are your guy's thoughts on it?


Homosexuality doesn't equate to infertility. Though even if we do say that homosexuals just don't reproduce this could still be a net benefit to increase the populations as we know have members of the group capable of providing needed services for those who are reproducing. Such as functioning as surrogate care givers to the offspring due to the parent not being around, either temporarily or permanently.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
326 posts
Shepherd

Best way to depopulate would be to reintroduce smallpox.

Humane? Not at all.

A thought? Yes it is.

McSwagga
offline
McSwagga
52 posts
Peasant

make a bad infection that turns people to zombies and they will do the rest

LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
Peasant

Best way to depopulate would be to reintroduce smallpox.

Humane? Not at all.

A thought? Yes it is.

I think you need to look up the definition of "best".

I hate threads with 1 sentence OPs who leave the reader to figure the real topic out. There are multiple scenarios where depopulation is necessary.

1) Third world countries where people lead a short life of famine and suffering.
My suggestion: an extremely large portion of the money raised by charity doesn't reach the target audience. Some goes to transport, but most of it goes to "gifts" to already wealthy people who have power in the country. Try to improve that first. You could then offer help in exchange for a sterilisation of the woman.

2) First world countries where the economy suffers because people keep growing older. Older people = more money goes to retirements. Also, the population stagnates so basically you have less working people to generate money for more elderly people who use money.
My suggestion: raise retirement age.

A depopulation is not always the solution.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,155 posts
Scribe

raise retirement age.

it works to a certain amount. at some point the elderly people will keep the jobs that are needed for younger people to give their working life a start.
if you want to raise retirement age then you will need to the jobs for it. if not then it wont work.

also is this not depopulating... in the case of to much elderly people i would say to just give less medical support. dont give a 89 year old a new hip or dont put people on emergency life support anymore after they are 75/80 for example. people get older because we keep them alive. just let them die, it's natural..

offer help in exchange for a sterilisation of the woman.

"hey, you. sterilize yourself, then we will help you."
i dont think many people want your help. and it certainly isn't going to help emancipation.
LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
Peasant

dont give a 89 year old a new hip or dont put people on emergency life support anymore after they are 75/80 for example. people get older because we keep them alive. just let them die, it's natural..

What the hell?

"Hi, I'm 89, I need medical support."
-"Heyyy, pal! I'm a doctor! Sorry, the law forbids me from helping you since you are older than 75. Even though you have worked and paid taxes for the majority of your time on earth, you don't deserve help because you're too old! Have fun!"

"hey, you. sterilize yourself, then we will help you."
i dont think many people want your help. and it certainly isn't going to help emancipat


First of all I don't see how sterilisation could negatively affect emancipation and sterilisation. I thought anticonception was an accomplishment of emancipation?

Second, believe me, when people are in need for medical help/food/water/shelter, they'll be more than happy to give up their fertility for that.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,188 posts
Blacksmith

Interesting tidbit I learned from my uncle (pertains to the conversation):

In 1935 the average life expectancy was about 62. 1935 was the year social security was passed. The current life expectancy is about 79*. That's a whole 17 year difference. Guess what? I'm 17, so that would be like repeating my entire life over again. A lot of people rely solely on SS, and when it was passed, it was for the lucky few who made it to 65. Now a large majority of people are living past 65, and thus more money is being taken out of SS.

LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
Peasant

In 1935 the average life expectancy was about 62. 1935 was the year social security was passed. The current life expectancy is about 79*. That's a whole 17 year difference. Guess what? I'm 17, so that would be like repeating my entire life over again. A lot of people rely solely on SS, and when it was passed, it was for the lucky few who made it to 65. Now a large majority of people are living past 65, and thus more money is being taken out of SS.


Yes, indeed, more money is spent on people's health than before, you have that correct. Maybe the US should stop spending 700 billion a year on their military if it worries about tax money so much.

Also, life expectancy depends on where you live.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
241 posts
Treasurer

life expectancy depends on where you live.

i agree with lazyone for this matter. life expectancy is highest in japan ( 81?) and lowest in African country, possibly congo (i forgot the exact number). the fact is that the more richer the country is the higher life expectancy will be. my theory is that if you somehow make all country poor that would unpopulate the world real quick
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
7,777 posts
Viceroy

my theory is that if you somehow make all country poor that would unpopulate the world real quick

So what about India?

Usually poor families tend to have more children, while industrialized ones have less. I rather tend to be in favor of raising all countries to a certain standard, which will of course pose the problem of older people, yet there will generally be less people and they will have higher living standards and higher education.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,155 posts
Scribe

Second, believe me, when people are in need for medical help/food/water/shelter, they'll be more than happy to give up their fertility for that.

i suggest you to take a look in some real 3rd world countries...
you have really no idea how it is to live there.
all you know are the desperately organizations begging for your money. the people who actually live there are not desperately begging for anything..

i dont help elders because of there age yes. but you want to 1st make their situation worse and then dont help anyone untill they make their own body disfunction... thats just cruel and plain evil... why dont you just reintroduce slavery while your at it?

First of all I don't see how sterilisation could negatively affect emancipation and sterilisation. I thought anticonception was an accomplishment of emancipation?

you want to force the woman to do something they would not choose for by themself. why dont you just say. all man must cut of their ****...? no instead you want the man to force the woman... sterilisation is 1 of the most radical forms of anticonception. you are really a awful person...
LazyOne
offline
LazyOne
167 posts
Peasant

i suggest you to take a look in some real 3rd world countries...
you have really no idea how it is to live there.
all you know are the desperately organizations begging for your money. the people who actually live there are not desperately begging for anything..

So you're saying a starving mother would not accept sterilisation in exchange for a future for herself and her child?

i dont help elders because of there age yes. but you want to 1st make their situation worse and then dont help anyone untill they make their own body disfunction... thats just cruel and plain evil... why dont you just reintroduce slavery while your at it?

Straw man argument. You are misrepresenting what I said.
What I said: "I think we should raise retirement age so that elders can enjoy their retirement without the young workforce paying for it."
Your interpretation:"omg why don u reintroduce slavery omg ur evil lol u wanna let all elderly people die omg"
No. The "Let all elderly people die" was your plan, not mine. Please learn how to read.
you want to force the woman to do something they would not choose for by themself.

I'm not forcing anyone. I'm giving them the choice. Please learn how to read.
why dont you just say. all man must cut of their ****...? no instead you want the man to force the woman...

Because, my friend, severing someone's genital area prohibits them from enjoying sex.
sterilisation is 1 of the most radical forms of anticonception. you are really a awful person...

Radical? Do you know what you're talking about, my friend? Sterilisation is the most efficient way of preventing a pregnancy. Also, why are you calling me an awful person? I'm talking about offering someone a chance, they can denyit. You're talking about letting all of the elders suffer until they either commit suicide because nobody is helping them or until they die of a natural cause.

If the quality of your arguments isn't going to go up, I will ignore your posts and put you on my mute list (if such a thing exists on AG). I refuse to discuss serious matters with someone who likes to use straw man arguments and add in an ad hominem every now and then as well.
Showing 166-180 of 257