You might have noticed that more and more people can'r find work, there are more and more food shorteges in certain parts of the world, unsufficient resources for everybody i.e. water, electricity, and so on. The are many problems on a material plan, but we often forget what happengs on a moral level. From the moment i began existing as a conscient beying i have been feeling that life isn't valued enough or at all in our times and societies.
there's also the effect we have on the planet im not talking about our inpact on ecology (there is that too!!) i'm pointing out that we have made many spicies exting or on the verge of extinction, not to mention the enormous amount of resources we deploy often in detriment of other living creatures and other humans.
so the problems are here what are the solutions? is reducing our numbers is a solution?
You don't know that. Intelligence does not necessarily equate to civility, but it doesn't equate to the use of force either.
Judging by the so-called "intelligent" ones of our current society, i.e. businessmen, politicians, etc, it's a pretty safe assumption that those with great intelligence are aggressive in their goals. Be mindful that by aggressive I don't necessarily mean forcibly aggressive, but at least extremely persistent. So if everyone in a society is extremely persistent, we would be bound for a conflict at some point.
That being said, the technology of transhumanism may also account for humanity's innate aggressiveness and counter it by making humans wiser, or more peaceful. It's hard to hypothesize about something so abstract.
Don't know how to quote, however, it would reduce the consumption of Earth's resources. And remove societal failures. And fix the gene pool. Also, it would reduce the likelihood of total war campaigns due to the lack of numbers.
Hmm...I think you overestimate the consumption of resources. This "solution" would be more inefficient than our current system.
And you're probably going to be one of the people who dies, too...
but then who would put gas in my car, and make me food when i don't have the time to prepare it myself, because im working. and how would you decide who died, who lived, who was in power after the panic, at that point there would be enough people to completely overrun most of the government personnel and facilities/institutions. i believe that world will fall into a state of complete anarchy, and eventually destroy itself, the population will dwindle, and a new order will take its place. look aat history people, its happened before, not on a global scale, but world war will kill alot of people.
As I said, people from each profession would be selected to continuously carry out their duties. This includes the working class, except there would be a lot less people. With 100k people, the entire world could fit into one city. And if you think there'd be enough people to over run government institutions, you've never heard of fully automatic weaponry. Or electric fences. Also, whoever initiated the mass genocide would probably retain power.
Hmm...I think you overestimate the consumption of resources. This "solution" would be more inefficient than our current system.
And you're probably going to be one of the people who dies, too...
What Utilitarian perspective are you taking?
I'm okay with being one of the ones who dies. I'm going to die eventually, and that doesn't really bother me. I'd rather die as a sacrifice to serve man kind than to some cancer or heart attack. My perspective on Utilitarianism is that it is a person's civic duty to do their best to serve the community. This means going above and beyond your basic career and contributions that stem from that.
Oh please, there's no need to reduce humankind to a mere 100k, and anyway if you think people would let that happen, you can prepare yourself for a never-ending war that would lay waste to earth much more than would a responsibly led big civilization. Like you said, reducing is only short-time effective. What you have to do is control birth rate, and you can look for yourself what possibilities I already posted before..
I'd rather die as a sacrifice to serve man kind than to some cancer or heart attack.
That's too bad - to me you would seem to be giving up your life for nothing. Also, certain Utilitarian schools say that it is better to have a greater population because there is a greater amount of happiness among all those people. Reducing the population to 100K seems to be counter to this. Than again, others, such as extreme Negative Utilitarianism say the opposite - that the best way would be to painlessly exterminate the human population. However, this does not seem to be the view that you are taking.
I am for population control. As in limiting the number of offspring, and even area populations.
good idea. as for the maximal number of population i think that 4-5 billion we'are at aprox. 6.7 billions. Accroding to wikipedias estimation by the end of this century we will be between 5.5 and 14 billion humans on earth [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population]
âI have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...â
LOL.
He doesn't realize that more food must go into this child's development than is consumed. Also, it is impossible to consume certain parts of the body, such as the hands and feet, because they are too bony and full of tendons.
Mark Steyn certainly believs so. I quote: "Every person who is born... produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gasses, and adds to the problem of over-population" Line up for forced steralizations and abortions ladies and gents.
Personally, I don't think it'll make much a difference. 10 killing a hundred is just the same as 1 killing 10.
