After the Coming Human Reduction....

1. 59

   qwarkposted 12 years ago

   .... will manking be reduced to "Eloi and Morlocks?"

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If the population could be cut to about 20% of what it is now, without destroying the infrastructure... after a period of readjustment, their might actually be a shot at real progress for the species again.
      
      Problem is: who has to be in the 80% to croak?  I nominate... THEM!!!!

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Definitely them. After all, they cannot be intelligent, because they don't agree with us.
         
         I never liked them anyway. They act weirdly and they mostly vote incorrectly.  Not to mention that almost all of them use Microsoft operating systems - that is the hardest part for me to stomach.
         
         I think we should have criteria like that. Plus looks, because looks are important.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Definitely looks.  That's got to be the primary factor.
            
            
            Well, depending on the reduction, hiding underground might not help either.  Or are you hellbent on having the mutants versus the regular humans conversation?  (It's still going to come down to an "us vs. them" thing.)

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Shades:
               I'd like to know more about the: "us vs. them" thing."
               Pls expand on this.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Doesn't need much expansion. You know the drill, same old anthro/sociology 101 stuff.

                  replyreport
      2. 59

         qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Lets imagine the population being reduced 80%....There will be those who will hide underground and probably be unscathed. Then there will be those who survived who may be horribly mutated by whatever was used to perpetrate the "reduction." The "reduction" will, necessarily, be massive if man is to be re-organized and governed successfully.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If they were to do such a thing, for example using nuclear power or chemicals to devestate, they would have to do this geographically. In other words, wipe out entire countries or continents.
            
            The land would be useless, probably infertile, definitely highly contaminated. What you lot do not seem to appreciate is that those killed would have been living on land which subsequently becomes redundant. Thus changing absolutely nothing for the 20% who live on unaffected land.
            
            Not that this would even be possible, seeing as the nuking of 80% of the worlds inhabitants would easily destroy the eco-systems required to keep the other 20% alive.
            
            There is no way out of our current situation. The only way out is for the biggest brains in this world to use their knowledge and abilities for the greater good of man, instead of for profit. And that means simply developing systems which adequately distribute the worlds resources, which are sufficient to feed, clothe, water, and medicate the entire world population.
            
            As an example, HALF of the food in America goes to waste each year. Judging by the obesity levels in America, that would probably be enough to sufficiently feed twice your population. That is 600m starving people already with enough food. I use America as an example only because most of you are Americans, it is much the same in Europe.
            
            We live in a world which is 70% covered in water, yet people still do not have access to clean water. Water can be purified for pennies. Most of the generic drugs required to protect and treat infections and illness, including malaria, can be produced for a penny a time. Cheaper than smarties.
            
            So tell me, why do we need to cut our world populations? We need to fix our societies, not cull them.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hi Ryan:
               Oh I agree with most of what you say.
               The massive increase in human population over the next 30 - 50 yrs will create problems yet unconceived.
               If man is to have a chance of surviving, he must be controlled and his natural proclivity for predation must be sublimated.
               Our species must be culled...radically, if it is to have a chance of becoming a successful species.
               Nature requires "balance."
               Every species of life has natural enemies which control that balance. Man has no natural enemies but himself.
               He continues to procreate at a rate that will soon increase human population to almost double within the next 60 yrs.
               Man is so fragmented and so diversified and so universaly ignorant that he can never come together in concert to guarantee his survival.
               His numbers will necessarily have to be reduced to a manageable number and there will have to be a powerful 1 world gov't dedicated to human survival to control the masses.
               Oh yes, it is coming!

               replyreport
2. 0

   ryankettposted 12 years ago

   If I live to see the world population intentionally reduced by 80% then I would sooner be one of those who was sacrificed then one of those who benefits from such an atrosity. Preferably pretty early on in the process if possible. Just so well that I don't believe it all, its bollocks.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, I never said "sacrificed."  Just, you woke up one day and 80% of the people were dead.  Oh, and the only people who HAVE to die in this scenario are anyone who would conclude that the 80% who died were claimed by God as the righteous or anything like that. Whatever it was that wiped everyone out, it definitely wiped anyone with the inclination to make it some evidence of a religous thing where only the turds of humanity are left.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Shades:
         Man is a "turd."  lol
         Being one of them and having lived over 60 years, I think I'm qualified to judge the majority of mankind as being "turds."
         There will have to be a human reduction...no doubt.
         How it will proceed? Beats me. Most likely nuclear.
         My concern is that there will be a planned survival program which will protect the "greatest" amongst us and allow nature and natural selection to take its course with those who are left to survive on their own and will undergo unknown and unthinkable mutations.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If this did happen, purely hypothetically, I would want to be one of the 80%.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            same here - I wouldn't want to witness such a horrible, unethical thing.   
            
            Maybe, people need to be discouraged from churning out 10 kids and doctors need to let old people die naturally, instead of reviving them. 
            
            If anyone is to be culled, start with the criminals.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, me, too. I wouldn't want to have to help clean up after 4.8 Billion dead bodies. Gross. Plus, we'd never get to them all before they started to become zombies.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ryankett:
      At the moment I present present "fantasmagoria." lol
      The possibility exists. Who knows what the probability is?
      I agree, that if there is a massive reduction, I'd want to be at ground zero if there is a nuclear catastrophe. I'd want to be evaporated in 1/600 of a second.
      The day will come, soon, that there will, necessarily, have to be a massive reduction in human population if man is to survive as a species.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I disagree with the notion that a cull needs to happen for humanity to survive, as per my post above.
         
         In fact it has been proven time and time again that there are perfectly adequate resources on this planet for every human being to survive.
         
         We can have touch screen monitors, voice activated laptops, but we cant give each small African town a $200 water purifier? We cannot adequately distribute the massive world food surpluses?
         
         If we shifted our technological focus we could happily give everybody a good standard of living. It is the western worlds vested interest in profit.
         
         Want an example? Solar power. The most profitable place on planet earth to place solar panels, and the cheapest, is Africa. Produce energy in African countries, give some of that energy to African countries as 'rent', and sell the rest to southern Europe.
         
         In Europe any Banana which isn't a certain size and curviture is rejected and THROWN AWAY. That is actually EU legislation. F*ck that, give them back to those who pick them for pennies per hour, let them sell them on or eat them.
         
         This world is f*cked up, and the idea that we 'NEED' to cull people is sick sick sick, wrong, wrong, wrong, and most of all completely incorrect.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I find the idea of culling disturbing, but I think that the population and resources are getting out of balance.  Economically, governments want people to breed to generate more taxes etc.  As far as resources go, more and more growth in population makes more pollution, more competition for resources (including land), makes life more expensive etc.

            replyreport
3. 86

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   Maybe we can convince the terrorists to kill themselves by lifting the number of virgins they collect for self disintegration only!
   We could offer the war mongers their own demise by putting all the religious fanatics in one country. They would blow themselves to "Kingdom come" by lunchtime over who's god was the only god.
   
   Clear and sane sailing from then on!

   replyreport
4. 61

   readytoescapeposted 12 years ago

   Just a little something for the Conspiracy Folks.
   
   According to Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura and a few others this human culling, via intentionally inflected disease, is already planned and will be soon put into effect by the Bilderberg Group.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Az0csNr5B0

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      readytoescape:
      it will either be done in clandestine manner or in a short period of time via a nuclear catastrophe.
      it will happen out of necessity.
      "Necessity is the mother of invention."
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 61

         readytoescapeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If I were to buy into one of these theories, or be planning one, a nuclear solution would not be an option. The concept of culling is based in the idea that too many humans are too difficult to control and are consuming too many natural resources.
         
         While the nuclear option solves the first “problem” it complicates the second by destroying and/or contaminating a large portion of those coveted resources, like food and water.
         
         Therefore an induced but controllable disease would be preferable, like for example Bird or Swine flu pandemics that would create a desire for voluntary mass inoculations.
         
         Does the H1N1 virus sound familiar, remember everyone flooding for the vaccine, was this a dry run? 
         
         See, I can come up with good conspiracies too!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Quite right, but we're considering 2 differing scenarios i.e. 1.one by those who only plan to reduce mankind to a level which can be controlled.
            2.the other by monotheist fanatics who await armageddon...the end of times.
            #1 would consider the natural resources necessary to nurture remaining life
            #2 would care not.
            #2 is the most likely scenario.

            replyreport
5. 78

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   It will take awhile through poisoning our food supply!

   replyreport