If you could erase 99% of population.....Would you?

1. 60

   residentstoneposted 12 years ago

   If you could erase 99% of population.....Would you?
   
   So, if you had a genetic timebomb, that would instantly erase 99% of the population in 1 shot, would you squeeze the trigger?  Bear in mind it would effect all races and cultures equally and would still leave 70 million+ people to start over with? And most likely leave the planet a much more pleasant place to live.

   replyreport
2. 70

   Mr. Thinktankposted 12 years ago

   Haha this sounds like some evil plot to a bond movie or something. The truth is, I don't know if starting over would really make that much difference. Humans can reproduce incredibly fast and it wouldn't take that long before humans would be back to the population we have today. I think most people wish the plannet had less occupants so going to work in traffic wouldn't be that bad and there would be less competition for things, but honestly, even if I had this mythical weapon I wouldn't use it. I mean, what if you wipe out the next Einstein, Steve Jobs, or Mozart? Although overcrowding is a problem that we need to start addressing, I don't think the best solution is to have a massive death cloud consume most of the plannet.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think it could give our grandchildren a chance.

      replyreport
3. 39

   Borsiaposted 12 years ago

   scary, but yes I probably would; although I would rather it also revive the planet's resources to the point they were when the population hit 70 million.
   Just in case you are curious I would do it even if I were to be among the "removed" 99%.
   Hopefully the remaining 1% would retain the knowledge we have of what happens when the planet is pushed beyond its capacity so that they could make better decisions than we did.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Scary?, I think it would be wonderful.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Ghost32posted 12 years ago

   No, I would not squeeze the trigger.  I've been fantasizing about something like that happening at least from the time I was eleven years of age (the memory is clear), but I'd not care for the die-off to be by my hand.
   
   Why not?
   
   Simply put, a decision of that magnitude is above my pay grade.  I firmly believe every incarnated Soul is here to learn, that the high population numbers we currently face allow us to do that in (obviously) greater numbers, and far be it from me to make the sort of Last Judgment call that decides when that learning opportunity will be truncated.
   
   I could, however, deal well enough with a different but related question:
   
   "If you knew the 99% eraser was coming and had the option of going or staying to help the remaining millions recover, would you stay?"
   
   If THAT were the question, then yes, I'd be willing to stay on to help out for a while.  Getting knocked down to 70 million planet-wide would mean a return to a non-technological society for quite some time.  Having a few old codgers around who could work "both sides of the street", i.e. city life or backwoods survival, could make a significant long term difference for the human race.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I did'nt say exsisting infrastructure would be gone, and that would leave like 3.5 million in USA alone, I think we could swing it.

      replyreport
5. 78

   Attikosposted 12 years ago

   Elimination of all but a relative handful of people would throw those who survived into a primitive subsistence economy. There would be nothing to eat you didn't kill or raise for yourself, no shelter from the winter you didn't provide and no air conditioning in the summer, no building materials with which to keep your house patched up against the weather, no treated water, no medicines, no rabies vaccinations for the packs of roaming animals that would form. So few of the remaining one percent would live through it the ability of the human race to continue would be doubtful.
   
   No, I would not pull the trigger. Threatening as are the problems from seven billions and growing of occupants in this little world, the alternative is far worse.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Again, I think we could figure it out with 3.5 million in USA alone. It would be like 70,000 per state. Enough to work hard.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Not enough to keep modern life support systems going. Not even close. Of those 70,000, perhaps one or two percent would have the survival skills to survive. Everyone else would die.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      World population was at 70 million in 1300ad, so we made it from there with flying colors, and are knowledge is 1000 fold since the dark ages, so why not?

      replyreport
   4. 78

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why could a 21st century population of any size not survive the sudden onset of a hunter-gatherer economy, or even a hardscrabble agrarian one? You don't really need to ask, do you? No one has their skills or built-up immunity to disease anymore.

      replyreport
   5. 39

      Borsiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It didn't say that technology was going to go with them and 70 million would be able to do most of what you say would be lost, if not all.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do, I could leave right now with knife and fire and survive anywhere in the world, island, woods, jungle, mountain, anywhere. And so could others.

      replyreport
   7. 78

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      A planet of seventy million couldn't keep today's technology going. It couldn't even train new generations in it. It couldn't feed itself, stop plagues, or maintain trade and transportation systems. You're fantasizing. I've had enough silliness here.

      replyreport
6. 0

   JThomp42posted 12 years ago

   No, everyone who is living has the right to do so. What gives anyone the right to play God. Would this elimination include yourself? I don't believe so.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why would it in a hypothetical scenario? It's not like I have one J.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it is hypothetical residentstone. Do you not find my observation fair?

      replyreport
   3. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If thats how you feel, sure, it's not how I feel, but thats life.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, that's life. In which every single person on this Earth deserves to have. This is a ridiculous "hypothetical" question.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why do they deserve J, because someone had sex and they popped out?? I dont buy it, nobody DESERVES anything.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So, how about you. Are you deserving?

      replyreport
   7. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In my scenario, I am, duh, lol. And yes, I think I am, oh, I'm not like other people J, not at all.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You my friend need a "HUGE" wake up call. You are no more deserving than a homeless person barely surviving on the streets. We are all equal!!

      replyreport
   9. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No J, you have no idea what I need, nor I, you. And yes, I am better than the majority of mindless slugs, lethargically leeching their way through life, the majority of humans make me sick, not all, just most.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       SMH God help you!

       replyreport
   11. 60

       residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       OK a 5 minute trip to Walmart for coffee just reconfirmed my answer, Yes I would push it for sure!

       replyreport
7. 0

   sheilamyersposted 12 years ago

   No I wouldn't. Attikos pointed out some very good reasons the planet wouldn't be a better place. Also, I think 70 million plus people would still find enough things to kill each other over.

   replyreport
8. 71

   tsmogposted 12 years ago

   Interesting concept. I will have to accept your math of 1% = 70 Million. Seems lore and fairy tales said they did that last time with tossing out 1/3. Next, they decided on a boat full. Now, 99% is a giant leap with a hypothesis, yet definitely more than a boat full.
   
   The meta-level message says "And most likely leave the planet" being yeah, I guess that does make sense, however where do they go? The conclusion being the planet a much more pleasant place to live seems to be thought as true. I ponder live as much as the proposed hypothesis.
   
   Ponder, if they do not leave the planet then the compost piles will be immense for a few years anyway. Could 70 million handle that ecological challenge with disposal? A whole lot of thought to consider with regard to pollution and stuff. Of course I am gong with the genetic time bomb theory being all at once as "1 shot." The polio vaccine seemed to offer the opposite effect and it was one shot. Stop offering those may be the solution? 
   
   I think if I ever caught wind of that being a real hypothesis I would simply phone home like ET and head out of here. What an immense challenge for ecologist. Hmmm, if that is the desired outcome I know what I will study in school today.
   
   The cusp of that as a disaster would probably plummet life to extinction pretty fast including wildlife. I really do not think 70 million would be able to keep up with the production of volatile gasses. Those race cars making over 8,0000 horsepower from a couple gallons of Nitro-Methane offer an example of what would happen when a match would be lit.
   
   The remake movie with Jeff Goldblum portraying an insect character likened to the earlier version with Vincent Price may predict a precursor to the hypothesis before the match was struck.
   
   Overall, too complex. Need a different hypothesis. Maybe condoms and education from one perspective and natural from another. Both lead to the same ending with time being the element of surprise.
   
   tim

   replyreport
   1. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, dude, they would magically be transported 400 million light years away to a different galaxy, no rotting corpses to deal with, better?

      replyreport
   2. 71

      tsmogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hello residentstone. I am a realist at times, other times an optimist, and others a pessimist. Usually i seek being a realist first and then ponder the next two. That may be a toss of a coin, wait and see, or ponder more. With the new criteria . . .

      replyreport
   3. 60

      residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You make my brain hurt, and I like that :0)

      replyreport
9. 0

   Sri Tposted 12 years ago

   Of course not. I have met so many good people. At one time I thought about it when considering the bad people. But later I learned how to handle the bad ones. In fact, I am grateful for the bad people because they opened a huge door of wisdom for me that l never knew existed. So now life is a continuous celebration every day.

   replyreport
10. 60

    IDONOposted 12 years ago

    No. How could I be so arrogant or self-confident to believe that I would keep the right 1%?

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Bravo Idono!!

       replyreport
    2. 60

       residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       That 1% is here now anyway, what the harm be in thinning the herd. Again, stop crying, it's a hypothetical question that is not going to happen anyway. SO touchy.

       replyreport
    3. 63

       cat on a soapboxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Great response! New leaders will be as bad as the old ones because ego infects the powerful. Deja vu.

       replyreport
11. 82

    MSGolden51posted 12 years ago

    I would not participant in destroying none of the population, if this could have been done, it probably would have been done already, and how would someone know who would be left behind.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       residentstoneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You would'nt thats the beauty of it.

       replyreport
12. 58

    Insane Mundaneposted 12 years ago

    Oh, great, we have to start over, AGAIN?  Dang, how many times do we have to do this?  No wonder those advanced races that used crystal technology and free energy devices got the hell out of here a long time ago...  LOL!
    Give it time, dear humanoid lover, and the population will eventually settle to a number that makes mother nature happy, in due time.  Then again, you could always wait for 'em to build you a special hotel resort via space stations, but I wouldn't hold your breath, nor would I look forward to the radiation found in deep space.  The space monkeys do say that the frozen doughnuts are nice this time of year, on planet Uranus.

    replyreport