Forums → WEPR → Is the world screwed enough that it should be destroyed?

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... =)

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

Who would benefit from our annihilation anyway?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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"

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)

No.

And I think that answer suffices.

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.

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?

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.

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.

~~~Darth Caedus

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.

Who decides what people are worth saving?

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.