What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

255	93791

offline

MagicTree

749 posts

Nomad

Posted August 24, '13 10:17pm UTC

Create a massive building and call it TrollCon. When all the trolls come, they will fall into a massive hole full of cacti to slowly prickle them to death. Simple:
Less People and Less Trolls.

It's the ultimate trolling.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted August 25, '13 12:07am UTC

Alright, I think it's time I gave everyone the answer so this thread of random nonsense suggestions can be put to rest.

Education, plain and simple. The number one predictor of how many children a woman will have in her lifetime is highly, strongly correlated to her level of education. Combine this with availability and use of birth control, while removing religion (which encourages high baby count so they have more defenseless things to indoctrinate and thus try and rule the world through oppressive morals and sheer screaming volume).

There are three stages to a nation's growth rate. Undeveloped countries have high birth rates, but high death rates as well. Then they begin to develop and get better societal systems, improved healthcare, and general education, meaning less people are now dying but women are still having 4-5 babies on average. Thus the population skyrockets (India/China) until beginning to stabilize.

The only humane way to reduce the population on earth is through education and mutual understanding that we cannot support infinite growth. There are some people on this thread who continually assert that economics fall apart at birth rates less than 2.1, but that completely ignores the issue that we have a finite amount of resources. Only once people realize that we're in deep **** will efforts be made to reduce the population, at which point the ideal method will have already been passed up because we keep digging ourselves deeper. That'll happen in about two hundred years I'd imagine, after our current population is 8x its current amount...

So there. Can we stop with the dumb suggestions now?

Alright, I think it's time I gave everyone the answer so this thread of random nonsense suggestions can be put to rest.\r\n\r\nEducation, plain and simple. The number one predictor of how many children a woman will have in her lifetime is highly, strongly correlated to her level of education. Combine this with availability and use of birth control, while removing religion (which encourages high baby count so they have more defenseless things to indoctrinate and thus try and rule the world through oppressive morals and sheer screaming volume). \r\n\r\nThere are three stages to a nation's growth rate. Undeveloped countries have high birth rates, but high death rates as well. Then they begin to develop and get better societal systems, improved healthcare, and general education, meaning less people are now dying but women are still having 4-5 babies on average. Thus the population skyrockets (India/China) until beginning to stabilize. \r\n\r\nThe only humane way to reduce the population on earth is through education and mutual understanding that we cannot support infinite growth. There are some people on this thread who continually assert that economics fall apart at birth rates less than 2.1, but that completely ignores the issue that we have a finite amount of resources. Only once people realize that we're in deep **** will efforts be made to reduce the population, at which point the ideal method will have already been passed up because we keep digging ourselves deeper. That'll happen in about two hundred years I'd imagine, after our current population is 8x its current amount...\r\n\r\nSo there. Can we stop with the dumb suggestions now?

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted August 25, '13 3:46am UTC

@Kasic i totally agree with your argument and this just a suggestion, but do you think of moving the people from earth? considering the title is " What would be the best way to unpopulate the Earth" , you surely consider moving people, maybe half of them to another planet, perhaps Mars ( I'm not saying right now but in a near future, perhaps 30-50 years there will be a colony on Mars, also this is a choice so no force involved, but maybe with less "fares" to go to there, not billions of dollars like a travel to the moon would take)?

Also, have you considered that even if they introduced the " 1 couple two child" policy ( like in my country Indonesia, there it's called "KB" , in English means " pre- planned family ", it advises people to have only 2 children only), it would still mean that our population would double in 8 years ( estimate, considering that every second 3 child is born everyday, in this part i need proof if I'm right/ corrections if I'm wrong, what i can say is that i got this from a TV program). so in the next 200 years, our population is NOT = 8 times our current population but WAY more than that perhaps 100+ times of our current population ( if, and ONLY IF, our resources are considered infinity and the space are also infinity, if that is considered as finite then perhaps less than that but still larger than 8 times the current population)

to everyone: pls correct me if i'm wrong and sorry if i sound like someone that knows it all. I need your comments so i can see where of the information that im lacking or else entirely wrong. also thanks for Habiha for showing the fact about India, i totally overlook that when i'm posting the last comment

@Kasic i totally agree with your argument and this just a suggestion, but do you think of moving the people from earth? considering the title is " What would be the best way to unpopulate the [b]Earth[/b]" , you surely consider moving people, maybe half of them to another planet, perhaps Mars ( I'm not saying right now but in a near future, perhaps 30-50 years there will be a colony on Mars, also this is a choice so no force involved, but maybe with less "fares" to go to there, not billions of dollars like a travel to the moon would take)?\r\n\r\nAlso, have you considered that even if they introduced the " 1 couple two child" policy ( like in my country Indonesia, there it's called  "KB" , in English means " pre- planned family ", it advises people to have only 2 children only), it would still mean that our population would double in 8 years ( estimate, considering that every second 3 child is born everyday, in this part i need proof if I'm right/ corrections if I'm wrong, what i can say is that i got this from a TV program). so in the next 200 years, our population is NOT = 8 times our current population but WAY more than that perhaps 100+ times of our current population ( if, and ONLY IF, our resources are considered infinity and the space are also infinity, if that is considered as finite then perhaps less than that but still larger than 8 times the current population)\r\n\r\nto everyone: pls correct me if i'm wrong and sorry if i sound like someone that knows it all. I need your comments so i can see where of the information that im lacking or else entirely wrong. also thanks for Habiha for showing the fact about India, i totally overlook that when i'm posting the last comment

offline

pickpocket

5,952 posts

Shepherd

Posted August 25, '13 5:53am UTC

Nuclear War probably.
This isnt a suggestion thread is it?

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted August 25, '13 7:09am UTC

you surely consider moving people, maybe half of them to another planet, perhaps Mars ( I'm not saying right now but in a near future, perhaps 30-50 years there will be a colony on Mars, also this is a choice so no force involved, but maybe with less "fares" to go to there, not billions of dollars like a travel to the moon would take)?

That won't be enough. We aren't even close to mass space colonialism. In the far future perhaps, but right now no.

it would still mean that our population would double in 8 years ( estimate, considering that every second 3 child is born everyday

I don't know where you're getting your statistics, but the current doubling rate is 54 years. That rate is also slowing down, I think. Anyways, ~160 years from now is 8x the current population, at the current rate.

The population would hold steady with a slight decline if everyone only had one child per person. The current numbers would be replaced, and accidental death/murder/sickness would bring it down.

This isnt a suggestion thread is it?

The OP is crappy, but the title implies that this is a suggestion question.

Anyways, there's been three kinds of responses to this thread. Serious ones, joking ones, and stupid/impossible ones. There are also people who are answering the question as if asked for the fastest way, or the most likely way, as you just did. Except it's asking for the best way, and the op mentions that any answers are hopefully humane.

[quote] you surely consider moving people, maybe half of them to another planet, perhaps Mars ( I'm not saying right now but in a near future, perhaps 30-50 years there will be a colony on Mars, also this is a choice so no force involved, but maybe with less "fares" to go to there, not billions of dollars like a travel to the moon would take)?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat won't be enough. We aren't even close to mass space colonialism. In the far future perhaps, but right now no.\r\n\r\n[quote]it would still mean that our population would double in 8 years ( estimate, considering that every second 3 child is born everyday[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't know where you're getting your statistics, but the current doubling rate is [url=http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzworldgrowth.htm]54 years[/url]. That rate is also slowing down, I think. Anyways, ~160 years from now is 8x the current population, at the current rate.\r\n\r\nThe population would hold steady with a slight decline if everyone only had one child per person. The current numbers would be replaced, and accidental death/murder/sickness would bring it down. \r\n\r\n[quote]This isnt a suggestion thread is it?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe OP is crappy, but the title implies that this is a suggestion question.\r\n\r\nAnyways, there's been three kinds of responses to this thread. Serious ones, joking ones, and stupid/impossible ones. There are also people who are answering the question as if asked for the fastest way, or the most likely way, as you just did. Except it's asking for the best way, and the op mentions that any answers are hopefully humane.

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted August 25, '13 1:10pm UTC

Nuclear War probably.

you're saying probability? a nuclear war would be unwanted by anyone( on any country i can think of) since if you nuke a country they will nuke you back, until reaching a point of what's called nuclear winter, which would be vastly damaging for both sides.

so it is possible to lower the population by nuking, but that would not be done by anyone with a clear head, unless some country started the act, then no country would had consider to do the deed( considering they don't want to commit self suicide)

offline

Kennethhartanto

241 posts

Constable

Posted August 25, '13 1:35pm UTC

also for Kasic

Except it's asking for the best way, and the op mentions that any answers are hopefully humane.

so you're saying that what i'm suggesting is bad and inhumane huh? for space colonization, true we aren't close to space colonization, but remember that the time period between the first satellite in orbit ( Sputnik) and the first human landing on the moon was very short just 2 decades tops. so i believe it's not very long to mass space colonization, even if today it's not even close to that matter. the government just need more incentive to have the will to develop the technology needed to do just that.

your doubling rates are also wrong because that states only

if the current rate of development continues

. the truth is the doubling rate gets faster when you add more people to the earth. so i can conclude that the link you show me was a wrong ESTIMATE, not the right one. show me another statistic with the adding of people born every day and then i'll trust your argument

also, accidental death/murder/sickness ? seriously? correct me if i'm wrong, but from your choice of words i can infer that you WISHED for them to happen. how is that not inhumane? what if you are the guy who's dying/being murdered/get a very deadly sickness and no one helps you ? is that humane? and would you even consider having only one child? can you accept that if you have one child, after you have that child you will be sterilized or not allowed to have more children? answer all that and i'll believe that you had thought of the ideas application on yourself and respect you.

one more thing, i'm not trying to discredit you or mock you, if i do it accidentally then i am sorry, really.

also for Kasic  [quote]Except it's asking for the best way, and the op mentions that any answers are hopefully humane.[/quote]\r\n\r\nso you're saying that what i'm suggesting is bad and inhumane huh? for space colonization, true we aren't close to space colonization, but remember that the time period between the first satellite in orbit ( Sputnik) and the first human landing on the moon was very short just 2 decades tops. so i believe it's not very long to mass space colonization, even if today it's not even close to that matter. the government just need more incentive to have the will to develop the technology needed to do just that.\r\n \r\nyour doubling rates are also wrong because that states only [quote][b]if the current rate of development continues[/b][/quote]. the truth is the doubling rate gets faster when you add more people to the earth. so i can conclude that the link you show me was a wrong ESTIMATE, not the right one. show me another statistic with the adding of people born every day and then i'll trust your argument\r\n\r\nalso, accidental death/murder/sickness ? seriously? correct me if i'm wrong, but from your choice of words i can infer that you WISHED for them to happen. how is that not inhumane? what if you are the guy who's dying/being murdered/get a very deadly sickness and no one helps you ? is that humane? and would you even consider having only one child? can you accept that if you have one child, after you have that child you will be sterilized or not allowed to have more children? answer all that and i'll believe that you had thought of the ideas application on yourself and respect you. \r\n\r\none more thing, i'm not trying to discredit you or mock you, if i do it accidentally then i am sorry, really.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted August 25, '13 6:24pm UTC

you're saying probability?

By probability, I think some sort of chemical or biological weapon is more likely than nukes.

so you're saying that what i'm suggesting is bad and inhumane huh?

I was responding to pickpocket with that comment. Though one of your earlier posts, make everyone dirt poor so they die like 2000 years ago, is certainly inhumane.

so i believe it's not very long to mass space colonization, even if today it's not even close to that matter. the government just need more incentive to have the will to develop the technology needed to do just that.

I doubt we're closer than 200-300 years until mass colonization of others planetary bodies in our solar system. Sure, we'll have a few little outposts here and there before then, but that won't help the population issue.

. the truth is the doubling rate gets faster when you add more people to the earth. so i can conclude that the link you show me was a wrong ESTIMATE, not the right one. show me another statistic with the adding of people born every day and then i'll trust your argument

You don't appear to understand what a doubling rate is. It's how long it takes the current population to double in number, and you're right that it gets faster, but the number itself doesn't shift very much. Look at it this way: if the current population takes 50 years to double, that's over 7 billion people in 50 years. Then if it takes 50 years again for it to double, that's over 14 billion people in as many years. So it's faster, but the rate itself may not have changed much. And by all estimates (due to what I mentioned with developing countries) the doubling rate will continue to go down as nation's become more developed. The doubling rate was something around 35 years back in 1960.

also, accidental death/murder/sickness ? seriously? correct me if i'm wrong, but from your choice of words i can infer that you WISHED for them to happen. how is that not inhumane

It's not that I wish for it to happen, but it does. The logical outcome of everyone producing only another member to replace themselves is that our total numbers will go down due to whatever kills people. People die from various causes, that's life.

what if you are the guy who's dying/being murdered/get a very deadly sickness and no one helps you ?

I never said anything of the sort. Of course you would help them. People still die from wars, car accidents, and sickness though, no matter how much help is given.

and would you even consider having only one child?

I don't plan on having any children at all for various reasons.

can you accept that if you have one child, after you have that child you will be sterilized or not allowed to have more children?

Forced sterilization of the populous would not be humane. It would only be through a mutual understand (as I said earlier) that we cannot infinitely continue to grow (within our current limitations).

I never said I think that what I said is the only humane way is going to happen. The far more likely outcome is that we run into a resource crisis which erupts into violence and ends with a great many people dead, whether through starvation, civil war, or disease. Basic ecology. When there are too many of a given species that their niche can no longer support, a die off occurs.

[quote]you're saying probability?[/quote]\r\n\r\nBy probability, I think some sort of chemical or biological weapon is more likely than nukes. \r\n\r\n[quote]so you're saying that what i'm suggesting is bad and inhumane huh?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI was responding to pickpocket with that comment. Though one of your earlier posts, make everyone dirt poor so they die like 2000 years ago, is certainly inhumane. \r\n\r\n[quote]so i believe it's not very long to mass space colonization, even if today it's not even close to that matter. the government just need more incentive to have the will to develop the technology needed to do just that.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI doubt we're closer than 200-300 years until mass colonization of others planetary bodies in our solar system. Sure, we'll have a few little outposts here and there before then, but that won't help the population issue. \r\n\r\n[quote]. the truth is the doubling rate gets faster when you add more people to the earth. so i can conclude that the link you show me was a wrong ESTIMATE, not the right one. show me another statistic with the adding of people born every day and then i'll trust your argument[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou don't appear to understand what a doubling rate is. It's how long it takes the current population to double in number, and you're right that it gets faster, but the number itself doesn't shift very much. Look at it this way: if the current population takes 50 years to double, that's over 7 billion people in 50 years. Then if it takes 50 years again for it to double, [b]that's over 14 billion people in as many years.[/b] So it's faster, but the rate itself may not have changed much. And by all estimates (due to what I mentioned with developing countries) the doubling rate will continue to go down as nation's become more developed. The doubling rate was something around 35 years back in 1960. \r\n\r\n[quote]also, accidental death/murder/sickness ? seriously? correct me if i'm wrong, but from your choice of words i can infer that you WISHED for them to happen. how is that not inhumane[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt's not that I wish for it to happen, but it does. The logical outcome of everyone producing only another member to replace themselves is that our total numbers will go down due to whatever kills people. People die from various causes, that's life. \r\n\r\n[quote]what if you are the guy who's dying/being murdered/get a very deadly sickness and no one helps you ? [/quote]\r\n\r\nI never said anything of the sort. Of course you would help them. People still die from wars, car accidents, and sickness though, no matter how much help is given. \r\n\r\n[quote]and would you even consider having only one child?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't plan on having any children at all for various reasons. \r\n\r\n[quote]can you accept that if you have one child, after you have that child you will be sterilized or not allowed to have more children?[/quote]\r\n\r\nForced sterilization of the populous would not be humane. It would only be through a mutual understand (as I said earlier) that we cannot infinitely continue to grow (within our current limitations). \r\n\r\nI never said I think that what I said is the only humane way is going to happen. The far more likely outcome is that we run into a resource crisis which erupts into violence and ends with a great many people dead, whether through starvation, civil war, or disease. Basic ecology. When there are too many of a given species that their niche can no longer support, a die off occurs.

offline

abt79

59 posts

Blacksmith

Posted January 30, '14 12:51am UTC

Genocide would work, so would contraception. Even though many populations are slowly declining and leveling off, and any population control is inhumane, immoral, and unnecessary.

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted January 30, '14 4:58am UTC

and any population control is inhumane, immoral, and unnecessary.

Does that include abstinence?

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 30, '14 5:08am UTC

Even though many populations are slowly declining and leveling off, and any population control is inhumane, immoral, and unnecessary.

It is necessary in nations where the birth rate is rocketing, without an adequate social structure to support them.

offline

mbbs112

198 posts

Peasant

Posted January 30, '14 2:59pm UTC

Only let each family have a maximum of 2 or 3 children especially in rural areas as they dont know about family planning

offline

McSwagga

52 posts

Nomad

Posted January 31, '14 3:36am UTC

have Russia blow us all up. they got plenty of nukes, right?

offline

pft

574 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 31, '14 5:52am UTC

The fastest way, but this would also destroy the planet and is currently impossible is to push the earth into the sun.

Just leave things as they are, eventually we will kill everything on this planet and ourselves.

Don't want to give more serious answers, as you could be a super villain.

have Russia blow us all up. they got plenty of nukes, right?

All countries but 3 have signed an agreement of getting rid of their nuclear weapons.

The 3 are Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

offline

IceClaw247

843 posts

Jester

Posted February 4, '14 5:57pm UTC

Epidemic outbreak?
China has the largest population of the world and is actually facing a population crysis. The average age of the population is going up because they are not producing enough children so soon in the future there will be a massive decrease in its population which almost regulates itself.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth