A question for all beliefs

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
A question for all beliefs

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

Way to scare the shit out of theists needlessly.

I wouldn't put it in terms of "what ifs" like this.

There is however, a reality that if our species does not face, time will dictate it in any case. We are not above nature and if we continue to over pollute our planet will not have the ability to absorb our waste and we are already seeing that, even without planet temp change, which is a reality.

At some point what will happen is that some power WILL take over, even if we don't want them to, and selection will be forced on us.

If humans want to avoid the force aspect of evolution we need to do a better job of planning a head and scaling back on our own. But when survival kicks in and resources are scarce and the environment is on it's last leg we will eventually get to the point of fighting over it and using domination to survive.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
This reminds me of a 2009

This reminds me of a 2009 movie with Cameron Diaz (<3) - "The Box". Note sure why.. stream of consciousness?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362478/

Personally, I would not intentionally make a choice resulting in the loss of life unless faced with no other likely choice. The inherent value of a population reset in your scenario is uncertain and leaves open the possibility of more beneficial alternatives.

Brian's statement is a likely possibility. Unless we strive to formulate a plan to indefinitely continue in peaceful coexistence, we will invariably destroy ourselves.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't know the intent of

I don't know the intent of the 1970s movie "Logan's Run" but it did depict a future where once you reached a certain age you were automatically put to death in a ceremony. But in that motif the population as a story line considered the suicide patriotic and part of the social norm.

I don't want our species to get to the point of that kind of force, I really don't but just like a building code, you can only have so many people in it before someone has to exit.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

No, why would I want to murder 2/3rds of the world? How do you kill 2/3rds of the worlds population without harming innocent people? Is 2/3rds of the worlds population guilty of something deserving death? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hi bum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

 

I believe if religion would never have existed it is quite possible that this question would never have come up.

Religion is responsible, in so many direct and indirect ways, for the problems of the world. And you wouldn't need your reset button.

Sure we would still have the inescapable stupidity of man. Do a little research on the end of life health care crisis. And how many Dr. Kavorkians

could help curb the population? How many religions believe you should have 16 god damn kids? And as far as innocent-innocent of what? You might

as well just be discriminative and choose an age group.  Even though some would consider themself a hero to be the one to take on this responsibility,

you gotta' remember that Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor too.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

No, why would I want to murder 2/3rds of the world? How do you kill 2/3rds of the worlds population without harming innocent people? Is 2/3rds of the worlds population guilty of something deserving death? 

Your missing his point which is why I said to him  "Way to needlessly scare the shit out of theists"

His point, and I agree is that we are not above nature. If we over populate that is no different than army ants eating everything in sight and then running out of resources. If you don't maintain a balance in an ecosystem something will topple it.

Our compassionate side as a species says that we don't want to get to that point, our ignorant side is avoiding the fact that we will, just like any other species will. Survival will over ride our compassionate side when cornered. If our species wants to avoid our destructive side we need to plan ahead. If we don't there will be a dominate alpha group that will do it for us, whether we want it or not.

We think we are above nature. But we are not. We have more babies being born in this world than people dying of even just natural causes. Unless we look at the planet like we would a building that has a capacity, we will get to the point where survival will kick in and someone will lose.

Death has to happen to make room for future life. Neither he or I are suggesting genocide. But if our species keeps focusing on politics and race and religion, and we keep making babies, our resources will get to the point that some power WILL do that, because evolution isn't about right or wrong, but survival.

Compassion is only one aspect of evolution. Get it done at all costs is also part of evolution. We are going to head down a road no label wants, but it will happen unless we slow down and plan ahead.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

No, why would I want to murder 2/3rds of the world? How do you kill 2/3rds of the worlds population without harming innocent people? Is 2/3rds of the worlds population guilty of something deserving death? 

Your missing his point which is why I said to him  "Way to needlessly scare the shit out of theists"

His point, and I agree is that we are not above nature. If we over populate that is no different than army ants eating everything in sight and then running out of resources. If you don't maintain a balance in an ecosystem something will topple it.

Our compassionate side as a species says that we don't want to get to that point, our ignorant side is avoiding the fact that we will, just like any other species will. Survival will over ride our compassionate side when cornered. If our species wants to avoid our destructive side we need to plan ahead. If we don't there will be a dominate alpha group that will do it for us, whether we want it or not.

We think we are above nature. But we are not. We have more babies being born in this world than people dying of even just natural causes. Unless we look at the planet like we would a building that has a capacity, we will get to the point where survival will kick in and someone will lose.

Death has to happen to make room for future life. Neither he or I are suggesting genocide. But if our species keeps focusing on politics and race and religion, and we keep making babies, our resources will get to the point that some power WILL do that, because evolution isn't about right or wrong, but survival.

Compassion is only one aspect of evolution. Get it done at all costs is also part of evolution. We are going to head down a road no label wants, but it will happen unless we slow down and plan ahead.

 

The point is irrelevant. Population growth has been cut in half since the 1950's and there is no reason to believe it won't continue to fall. The US and a few other developed countries are actual below replacement rate, meaning that our population would be shrinking if it wasn't for our high immigration inflow. The only areas that have real population dangers are undeveloped countries mostly due to religion and lack of birth control. There is no reason to kill them, just educate them. It is happening and there is no reason to believe that it won't continue to happen so I see no reason to obsess over it.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

No, why would I want to murder 2/3rds of the world? How do you kill 2/3rds of the worlds population without harming innocent people? Is 2/3rds of the worlds population guilty of something deserving death? 

Your missing his point which is why I said to him  "Way to needlessly scare the shit out of theists"

His point, and I agree is that we are not above nature. If we over populate that is no different than army ants eating everything in sight and then running out of resources. If you don't maintain a balance in an ecosystem something will topple it.

Our compassionate side as a species says that we don't want to get to that point, our ignorant side is avoiding the fact that we will, just like any other species will. Survival will over ride our compassionate side when cornered. If our species wants to avoid our destructive side we need to plan ahead. If we don't there will be a dominate alpha group that will do it for us, whether we want it or not.

We think we are above nature. But we are not. We have more babies being born in this world than people dying of even just natural causes. Unless we look at the planet like we would a building that has a capacity, we will get to the point where survival will kick in and someone will lose.

Death has to happen to make room for future life. Neither he or I are suggesting genocide. But if our species keeps focusing on politics and race and religion, and we keep making babies, our resources will get to the point that some power WILL do that, because evolution isn't about right or wrong, but survival.

Compassion is only one aspect of evolution. Get it done at all costs is also part of evolution. We are going to head down a road no label wants, but it will happen unless we slow down and plan ahead.

 

The point is irrelevant. Population growth has been cut in half since the 1950's and there is no reason to believe it won't continue to fall. The US and a few other developed countries are actual below replacement rate, meaning that our population would be shrinking if it wasn't for our high immigration inflow. The only areas that have real population dangers are undeveloped countries mostly due to religion and lack of birth control. There is no reason to kill them, just educate them. It is happening and there is no reason to believe that it won't continue to happen so I see no reason to obsess over it.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

Wow, out of all the things we have disagreed upon this has to be the most obtuse stance you have ever taken.

You masturbate over everyone needing to have the ability to do simple math to balance their checkbook. But you deny that the amount of babies being born outnumbers the amount of death.

How long do you think our planet can handle that pace?

You are the reason that nightclubs end up in fire because the bouncer,YOU ,has been told to pack them in to maximize profits.

Let me make this simple for you. MATH, and for someone who jerks off as if a calculator were the centerfold of playboy, this isn't rocket science.

We have more humans coming in than going out. Arguing "pace" doesn't mean it is enough, it is still lopsided and we are still going too fast.

 http://www.worldometers.info/world-population

It is as simple as incoming and outgoing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Wow, out of

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, out of all the things we have disagreed upon this has to be the most obtuse stance you have ever taken.

You masturbate over everyone needing to have the ability to do simple math to balance their checkbook. But you deny that the amount of babies being born outnumbers the amount of death.

How long do you think our planet can handle that pace?

You are the reason that nightclubs end up in fire because the bouncer,YOU ,has been told to pack them in to maximize profits.

Let me make this simple for you. MATH, and for someone who jerks off as if a calculator were the centerfold of playboy, this isn't rocket science.

We have more humans coming in than going out. Arguing "pace" doesn't mean it is enough, it is still lopsided and we are still going too fast.

 http://www.worldometers.info/world-population

It is as simple as incoming and outgoing.

 

Pace and trends do matter. We are not in imminent danger of devastating overpopulation. The very page you linked to predicts that the world population will stabilize at 10 billion in 2200. So the only question is whether our planet can support 10 billion people in 190 years. I don't see why it can't a good portion of our planet remains uninhabited. Where is the horrible problem that I should be concerned about?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers

tonyjeffers wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

 

I believe if religion would never have existed it is quite possible that this question would never have come up.

Religion is responsible, in so many direct and indirect ways, for the problems of the world. And you wouldn't need your reset button.

Sure we would still have the inescapable stupidity of man. Do a little research on the end of life health care crisis. And how many Dr. Kavorkians

could help curb the population? How many religions believe you should have 16 god damn kids? And as far as innocent-innocent of what? You might

as well just be discriminative and choose an age group.  Even though some would consider themself a hero to be the one to take on this responsibility,

you gotta' remember that Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor too.

Religion was inevitable because of evolution. Evolution's goal is not about fact finding being the default, even evolution's goal is getting to the point of reproduction. A gap answer can produce the effect of survival. False belief kept the Egyptians, who centered around the sun being a god, in business for 3,000 years.

Dawkins explains this flaw in The God Delusion as "The moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight"

Bad guesses do work, not because the guess is right, but it produces luck and safety in numbers.

And what the fuck does this have to do with Hitler? If Hitler had gotten the bomb before the west, things would be different for our species. Evolution would not have stopped in that case.

WE recoil at Hitler and rightfully so, because of evolution as well. No sane human wants harm to come to themselves. Hitler's reaction was to a lack of resources AND his own delusional narcissism. His delusion of being a hero lead him to lead others to follow him.

But that is part of evolution, it doesn't have to be good for everyone, it just has to work. BUT empathy and survival is also part of evolution which is why we fought back.

The reality in evolution is that it really is a crap shoot. Sometimes the good guy wins, sometimes the bad guy wins, but ultimately power shifts over time. No one is the alpha male forever. Hitler's problem is the same as religion and presumes a utopia and final solution, just like religion. Most humans see life as a script, instead of a range like the reality of evolution. They set up utopias in the form of labels with political and religious names. Our biggest failure that leads to people like Hitler is our own failure to see ourselves as the same species.

If Europe and America had not left Germany to rot after WW1 Hitler most likely would have just been a nut in a mental hospital.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Wow, out of all the things we have disagreed upon this has to be the most obtuse stance you have ever taken.

You masturbate over everyone needing to have the ability to do simple math to balance their checkbook. But you deny that the amount of babies being born outnumbers the amount of death.

How long do you think our planet can handle that pace?

You are the reason that nightclubs end up in fire because the bouncer,YOU ,has been told to pack them in to maximize profits.

Let me make this simple for you. MATH, and for someone who jerks off as if a calculator were the centerfold of playboy, this isn't rocket science.

We have more humans coming in than going out. Arguing "pace" doesn't mean it is enough, it is still lopsided and we are still going too fast.

 http://www.worldometers.info/world-population

It is as simple as incoming and outgoing.

 

Pace and trends do matter. We are not in imminent danger of devastating overpopulation. The very page you linked to predicts that the world population will stabilize at 10 billion in 2200. So the only question is whether our planet can support 10 billion people in 190 years. I don't see why it can't a good portion of our planet remains uninhabited. Where is the horrible problem that I should be concerned about?

Yea, it is always one dimensional with you. It is not just a building with capacity limits. If no one takes out the trash, you could have 10 people in that building, but if no one takes it out, it still piles up.

I am old enough to remember longer winters and a cleaner ocean. We are at 7 billion, and each of those humans produces waste, that waste has to go somewhere. Most 3rd world countries dump it in the ocean.

You are an idiot if you think 10 billion wont do more harm than what we are already doing. I think what we are doing with the population we already have is bad enough.

Your Faux News scientists are like their boss, only interested in profit, and as about real scientists like Faux News has real reporters.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:This reminds me of

ax wrote:

This reminds me of a 2009 movie with Cameron Diaz (<3) - "The Box". Note sure why.. stream of consciousness?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362478/

Personally, I would not intentionally make a choice resulting in the loss of life unless faced with no other likely choice. The inherent value of a population reset in your scenario is uncertain and leaves open the possibility of more beneficial alternatives.

Brian's statement is a likely possibility. Unless we strive to formulate a plan to indefinitely continue in peaceful coexistence, we will invariably destroy ourselves.

I forget the original story, but the rehash of the story sucked. I dislike Cameron Diaz as an actress.

As for my question, there are no other options. You either release it or you don't.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

Way to scare the shit out of theists needlessly.

I wouldn't put it in terms of "what ifs" like this.

There is however, a reality that if our species does not face, time will dictate it in any case. We are not above nature and if we continue to over pollute our planet will not have the ability to absorb our waste and we are already seeing that, even without planet temp change, which is a reality.

At some point what will happen is that some power WILL take over, even if we don't want them to, and selection will be forced on us.

If humans want to avoid the force aspect of evolution we need to do a better job of planning a head and scaling back on our own. But when survival kicks in and resources are scarce and the environment is on it's last leg we will eventually get to the point of fighting over it and using domination to survive.

We are doomed as a species. Some of us already know it. Others are too ignorant to see the future.

The amount of time we waste arguing about which god is more powerful or how much money one can collect will be our biggest downfall.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

No, why would I want to murder 2/3rds of the world? How do you kill 2/3rds of the worlds population without harming innocent people? Is 2/3rds of the worlds population guilty of something deserving death? 

You think too much. It was a hypothetical question.

Would it be murder? Depends on your point of view.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:
The point is irrelevant. Population growth has been cut in half since the 1950's and there is no reason to believe it won't continue to fall. The US and a few other developed countries are actual below replacement rate, meaning that our population would be shrinking if it wasn't for our high immigration inflow. The only areas that have real population dangers are undeveloped countries mostly due to religion and lack of birth control. There is no reason to kill them, just educate them. It is happening and there is no reason to believe that it won't continue to happen so I see no reason to obsess over it.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

I think you are only looking at one aspect of the situation. So what if the population growth has been cut in half since 1950. What else is going on in the world which would be cause for alarm? Is it the fact that we might not be able to supply the world with enough fresh water? what about food? what about new viruses and diseases?

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Pace and

Beyond Saving wrote:
Pace and trends do matter. We are not in imminent danger of devastating overpopulation. The very page you linked to predicts that the world population will stabilize at 10 billion in 2200. So the only question is whether our planet can support 10 billion people in 190 years. I don't see why it can't a good portion of our planet remains uninhabited. Where is the horrible problem that I should be concerned about?

This planet will never see 10 billion people. We will lose the battle in the next 50 years if we do not change our routine.

Wait until we hit the point of no return with oil. When this happens in the next 40 years the entire world will change for the worse.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea, it is

Brian37 wrote:

Yea, it is always one dimensional with you. It is not just a building with capacity limits. If no one takes out the trash, you could have 10 people in that building, but if no one takes it out, it still piles up.

I am old enough to remember longer winters and a cleaner ocean. We are at 7 billion, and each of those humans produces waste, that waste has to go somewhere. Most 3rd world countries dump it in the ocean.

And them dumping it into the ocean is a problem regardless of whether there are  7 billion or 10 billion people. If no one takes out the trash and there is one person in the building it is a problem. The solution is to take out the trash, not kill the person or prevent the other 9 from moving into the building. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You are an idiot if you think 10 billion wont do more harm than what we are already doing. I think what we are doing with the population we already have is bad enough.

 

Evidence? The air quality in the US has been improving despite our population increasing, us driving more cars and using more energy. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html 

 

You are an idiot if you think we won't have better technology in 190 years. 

 

If you have 7 billion people polluting another 3 billion isn't going to make that big of a difference, the solution is to control the pollution being created by the 7 billion. Fortunately, in the latter half of the 20th century we started focusing on things we can do to take care of our pollution and we have been rather successful at it. As 3rd world countries modernize and have access to the technologies that control pollution it is safe to predict that their pollution levels will drop as well. Which as a happy coincidence also leads to their population growth rates shrinking. So the solution is educating and exporting capitalism so that 2nd and 3rd world countries develop and create enough wealth that their societies can develop hippie consumers who will shell out extra money just to save the environment.

 

Wiping out 2/3rds of the population isn't going to stop pollution, it might slow it down temporarily but probably not for long as people would probably start having more kids and population growth rate would skyrocket. From an economic point of view it would be devastating and to maintain their lives people would have to have kids to work and help support the family. There is a reason families used to be huge, kids were needed to work and large families had an advantage because each kid provided more production than they consumed. Wealth is what gives us the option of having kids and allows us to have kids basically for personal reasons and allow them to be an economic drain.

 

The permanent solution is to find ways to lower our pollution using technology and to modernize less developed countries so that they have wealth which will lead to lower pollution and lower birthrates. If you are faced with starvation you don't give a shit about the environment, caring about the environment is the luxury of a full stomach. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
No. I think there is a

No. I think there is a social contract not to kill one another. But in this scenario someone else would eventually do it.

We've almost got this scenario with WMDs. Someone's going to start WWIII.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

 

I believe if religion would never have existed it is quite possible that this question would never have come up.

Religion is responsible, in so many direct and indirect ways, for the problems of the world. And you wouldn't need your reset button.

Sure we would still have the inescapable stupidity of man. Do a little research on the end of life health care crisis. And how many Dr. Kavorkians

could help curb the population? How many religions believe you should have 16 god damn kids? And as far as innocent-innocent of what? You might

as well just be discriminative and choose an age group.  Even though some would consider themself a hero to be the one to take on this responsibility,

you gotta' remember that Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor too.

Religion was inevitable because of evolution. Evolution's goal is not about fact finding being the default, even evolution's goal is getting to the point of reproduction. A gap answer can produce the effect of survival. False belief kept the Egyptians, who centered around the sun being a god, in business for 3,000 years.

Dawkins explains this flaw in The God Delusion as "The moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight"

Bad guesses do work, not because the guess is right, but it produces luck and safety in numbers.

And what the fuck does this have to do with Hitler? If Hitler had gotten the bomb before the west, things would be different for our species. Evolution would not have stopped in that case.

WE recoil at Hitler and rightfully so, because of evolution as well. No sane human wants harm to come to themselves. Hitler's reaction was to a lack of resources AND his own delusional narcissism. His delusion of being a hero lead him to lead others to follow him.

But that is part of evolution, it doesn't have to be good for everyone, it just has to work. BUT empathy and survival is also part of evolution which is why we fought back.

The reality in evolution is that it really is a crap shoot. Sometimes the good guy wins, sometimes the bad guy wins, but ultimately power shifts over time. No one is the alpha male forever. Hitler's problem is the same as religion and presumes a utopia and final solution, just like religion. Most humans see life as a script, instead of a range like the reality of evolution. They set up utopias in the form of labels with political and religious names. Our biggest failure that leads to people like Hitler is our own failure to see ourselves as the same species.

If Europe and America had not left Germany to rot after WW1 Hitler most likely would have just been a nut in a mental hospital.

The reason I stuck Hitler in there was just to show the silliness of the "innocent people only" part of his question. And I'm not 100% agreed on the

gap answer producing the effect of survival. I've stated in other posts that the jury is still out on that one for me. How do we know that the Egyptians

wouldn't have gone much further without the Sun-god. How do I know that my mother would be better off in the long run if I don't sway her from

christianity. Without the luxury of being able to experiment with a control group and hind-sight after the fact, I can't be 100%, but I know how i feel about it.

And I think the bum likes to get you and Beyond going. lol  I think he sits back and enjoys the turmoil he's created. I know I do. I don't know how many

times I've had to scroll back on some of these threads just to see what the original question was. It sure would be boring to agree with everyone.

 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:You

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You think too much. It was a hypothetical question.

Would it be murder? Depends on your point of view.

Lol, isn't the point of a hypothetical question to think? Yes it would be murder, well I guess genocide might be more accurate except you're not really targeting a specific group. Either way I would have a massive moral problem with it and if I had the ability to stop someone from doing such a thing I would.

 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I think you are only looking at one aspect of the situation. So what if the population growth has been cut in half since 1950. What else is going on in the world which would be cause for alarm? Is it the fact that we might not be able to supply the world with enough fresh water? what about food? what about new viruses and diseases?

Do you have evidence that we wouldn't have enough food? Enough water? Those are problems that can be solved easily on a theoretical level. We have problems with distribution but not quantity of food or water. Shortages of ore and minerals is probably the most difficult hurdle to deal with. As countries modernize demand for raw materials increases. I think that problem is surmountable through technology as we create disposable replacements. 

 

Viruses and disease? So what? They will be around whether our population is 50,000 or 50 billion and if some massive disease does come, and one probably will although I suspect a man made weaponized virus will be the next black plague rather than a natural occurrence, then that lowers the population doesn't it? 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This planet will never see 10 billion people. We will lose the battle in the next 50 years if we do not change our routine.

Wait until we hit the point of no return with oil. When this happens in the next 40 years the entire world will change for the worse.

 

What battle? Why 50 years? What is going to happen in 50 years? 

 

We have alternatives to oil. The world is going to change. So what? The world changes every day no reason to flip out over it. Oil gets rare, the price skyrockets we switch to a different fuel source. Over the next couple hundred years there will be challenges, that is life. Eliminating 2/3rds of the population does nothing to deal with the long term challenges. If you have 3 billion people living modern lifestyles their oil is going to run out too maybe you add a few years to your magic 50 but you haven't changed anything except you might have killed the next John D. Rockefeller who was going to lead the revolution to the next major fuel source.   

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: You are

Beyond Saving wrote:
You are an idiot if you think we won't have better technology in 190 years. 

 If you have 7 billion people polluting another 3 billion isn't going to make that big of a difference, the solution is to control the pollution being created by the 7 billion. Fortunately, in the latter half of the 20th century we started focusing on things we can do to take care of our pollution and we have been rather successful at it. As 3rd world countries modernize and have access to the technologies that control pollution it is safe to predict that their pollution levels will drop as well. Which as a happy coincidence also leads to their population growth rates shrinking. So the solution is educating and exporting capitalism so that 2nd and 3rd world countries develop and create enough wealth that their societies can develop hippie consumers who will shell out extra money just to save the environment.

 Wiping out 2/3rds of the population isn't going to stop pollution, it might slow it down temporarily but probably not for long as people would probably start having more kids and population growth rate would skyrocket. From an economic point of view it would be devastating and to maintain their lives people would have to have kids to work and help support the family. There is a reason families used to be huge, kids were needed to work and large families had an advantage because each kid provided more production than they consumed. Wealth is what gives us the option of having kids and allows us to have kids basically for personal reasons and allow them to be an economic drain.

 The permanent solution is to find ways to lower our pollution using technology and to modernize less developed countries so that they have wealth which will lead to lower pollution and lower birthrates. If you are faced with starvation you don't give a shit about the environment, caring about the environment is the luxury of a full stomach. 

There are many variables still to consider, but at the current rate of our world wide society, I find it unlikely that we will keep the world population at 7 billion. I believe it will decrease.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:The reason

tonyjeffers wrote:
The reason I stuck Hitler in there was just to show the silliness of the "innocent people only" part of his question. And I'm not 100% agreed on the gap answer producing the effect of survival. I've stated in other posts that the jury is still out on that one for me. How do we know that the Egyptians

wouldn't have gone much further without the Sun-god. How do I know that my mother would be better off in the long run if I don't sway her from

christianity. Without the luxury of being able to experiment with a control group and hind-sight after the fact, I can't be 100%, but I know how i feel about it.

And I think the bum likes to get you and Beyond going. lol  I think he sits back and enjoys the turmoil he's created. I know I do. I don't know how many

times I've had to scroll back on some of these threads just to see what the original question was. It sure would be boring to agree with everyone.

 

I dislike conflict. My original question had nothing to do with starting this sort of discussion but Brian did bring out an interesting point of view; one I had not thought of when I originally posted my question.

I really wanted to know if some one would "push the button" to get rid of 2/3rds of the population.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Lol,

Beyond Saving wrote:
Lol, isn't the point of a hypothetical question to think? Yes it would be murder, well I guess genocide might be more accurate except you're not really targeting a specific group. Either way I would have a massive moral problem with it and if I had the ability to stop someone from doing such a thing I would.

Do you have evidence that we wouldn't have enough food? Enough water? Those are problems that can be solved easily on a theoretical level. We have problems with distribution but not quantity of food or water. Shortages of ore and minerals is probably the most difficult hurdle to deal with. As countries modernize demand for raw materials increases. I think that problem is surmountable through technology as we create disposable replacements. 

Viruses and disease? So what? They will be around whether our population is 50,000 or 50 billion and if some massive disease does come, and one probably will although I suspect a man made weaponized virus will be the next black plague rather than a natural occurrence, then that lowers the population doesn't it? 

What battle? Why 50 years? What is going to happen in 50 years? 

We have alternatives to oil. The world is going to change. So what? The world changes every day no reason to flip out over it. Oil gets rare, the price skyrockets we switch to a different fuel source. Over the next couple hundred years there will be challenges, that is life. Eliminating 2/3rds of the population does nothing to deal with the long term challenges. If you have 3 billion people living modern lifestyles their oil is going to run out too maybe you add a few years to your magic 50 but you haven't changed anything except you might have killed the next John D. Rockefeller who was going to lead the revolution to the next major fuel source.   

From your point of view it would be murder, but to another it would be a action acceptable losses.

I have family which are from third world countries. There is an on going epidemic for various crops world wide which is because of genetic manipulation of seeds and offspring. Bugs are become immune to the pesticides (etc) and since the plants are the same generation as 20 years ago no evolution has taken place to allow them to change (survival of the fittess).

Coffee, bananas, wheat, barley, and peanuts have all been affected and there are dozens more which I forget at this time. Let's not forget mentioning the problems with livestock and the long term effects of breeding the same stock over and over again.

In less than 50 years the world production of oil will max out. After this happens the amount of oil left in the ground will decrease expodentially. Prices for oil will skyrocket and gasoline will reach an all time high of hundreds of dollars per gallon. Eventually on the extremely wealthy will be able to afford it. And the technology we currently have is not keeping up with the pace. We will run out of oil before we figure out that mass transportation would have been the best option for all the major cities of the world.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


JeanChauvinSOCK...
TheistTroll
JeanChauvinSOCKPUPPET's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Hi Beach

Hi,

So i suppose my question is what would an atheist do? While I understand not all atheists are the same, there has to be some sort of commonality to this belief system.

Hypothetically speaking, givin that there is a typical atheist at the controls to do this, and if he were to be true to his beliefs what would he do? I would probably argue that he would push the button.

I'm starting to wonder if I should consider another religion in terms of what I actually adhere to.

 


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

 

No, there's apparently a 66% chance of me dying in the hypothesis.

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Joachim Vadian wrote:Hi,So i

Joachim Vadian wrote:

Hi,

So i suppose my question is what would an atheist do? While I understand not all atheists are the same, there has to be some sort of commonality to this belief system.

Hypothetically speaking, givin that there is a typical atheist at the controls to do this, and if he were to be true to his beliefs what would he do? I would probably argue that he would push the button.

I'm starting to wonder if I should consider another religion in terms of what I actually adhere to.

 

It doesn't matter what religion or belief or what ever, each person has a different reason for pushing or not pushing the button.

I'm slightly confused by your response.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn

neptewn wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

 

 

No, there's apparently a 66% chance of me dying in the hypothesis.

 

Congratulations you are the first person to give a response as such.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
No I wouldn't, allthough I

No I wouldn't, allthough I didn't consider I might die myself. But of the 100 or so people that I care for to a greater or lesser extent 66 would die, so no absolutely not.

 

But I think it would be a swell idea for humans to start considering not overpopulating the Earth any further. I just don't want it to come from forced euthenasia. Way too much emotional pain for everyone. Everybody loves somebody, so none of us could bear it. But have less babies; that I can get behind.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:No I wouldn't,

Nikolaj wrote:

No I wouldn't, allthough I didn't consider I might die myself. But of the 100 or so people that I care for to a greater or lesser extent 66 would die, so no absolutely not.

 

But I think it would be a swell idea for humans to start considering not overpopulating the Earth any further. I just don't want it to come from forced euthenasia. Way too much emotional pain for everyone. Everybody loves somebody, so none of us could bear it. But have less babies; that I can get behind.

I believe over population will not be a problem in the near future. I have been told that when the baby boomer generation start to die off that we will see a decrease in the world population. I have also been told that in the last twenty years the size of the family has decreased. Families are becoming smaller for financial reasons related to a poor world economy.


 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:From

digitalbeachbum wrote:

From your point of view it would be murder, but to another it would be a action acceptable losses.

I have family which are from third world countries. There is an on going epidemic for various crops world wide which is because of genetic manipulation of seeds and offspring. Bugs are become immune to the pesticides (etc) and since the plants are the same generation as 20 years ago no evolution has taken place to allow them to change (survival of the fittess).

Coffee, bananas, wheat, barley, and peanuts have all been affected and there are dozens more which I forget at this time. Let's not forget mentioning the problems with livestock and the long term effects of breeding the same stock over and over again.

In less than 50 years the world production of oil will max out. After this happens the amount of oil left in the ground will decrease expodentially. Prices for oil will skyrocket and gasoline will reach an all time high of hundreds of dollars per gallon. Eventually on the extremely wealthy will be able to afford it. And the technology we currently have is not keeping up with the pace. We will run out of oil before we figure out that mass transportation would have been the best option for all the major cities of the world.

 

 

So we have challenges to deal with. In what way does killing 2/3rds of the worlds population solve any of these problems? The remaining 1/3 is still going to farm, still raise cattle, and still use oil. You have slaughtered billions of people and not solved any of the problems you have listed. It is akin to saying "Well, people breaking their legs is a problem- I know lets kill 2/3rds of them."  Really, WTF? 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  In

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 In what way does killing 2/3rds of the worlds population solve any of these problems?

 

 

   Because it clearly reduces logistical requirements upon resources that are in no way infinite.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3614
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   Because it clearly reduces logistical requirements upon resources that are in no way infinite.  

 

   Having said that, if forced to choose I would likely just take the path of least resistance and off myself and be done with it.  Nobody would give a shit and I would leave the rest of you savages to compete with each other like those materialistic fools at shopping malls on Black Friday or the sub human shoppers who violently attacked each other over Air Jordans.    Yes, by all means keep going the way we are going, be a global version of the the Duggar Family.   Watch how quickly human altruism disappears when competition grows.    Ha ha, enjoy your overcrowded paradise !!!

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination." Voltaire ( 1694-1778 )


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 In what way does killing 2/3rds of the worlds population solve any of these problems?

   Because it clearly reduces logistical requirements upon resources that are in no way infinite.  

Not necessarily. Imagine the impact on our current logistical system if 2/3rds of the people who operate disappeared overnight. Suddenly distributing food even in countries with large surpluses like the US would become difficult. It takes people to grow crops, prepare, transport and preserve food. So while you are reducing demand, you are crippling supply at least in the short term. The initial shock and confusion would certainly lead to an inconsistent distribution. While starvation in the US might be limited because of our large natural supply our exports would be completely stopped for a period of time leading to starvation in other countries. Life for the remaining 1/3rd would become extremely difficult and it would take time for our supply systems to absorb that kind of shock.

 

We would basically be going back to a 1930's world population. It is likely that with such a large drop in population that the population growth rate would increase across the world. Human labor would become far more expensive and therefore encourage larger families because kids could help work and help support the family. In another 80 years the population would be right back where it is now give or take a few hundred million, so for things like oil you might add a few decades before we hit peak oil but not a lot.   

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

From your point of view it would be murder, but to another it would be a action acceptable losses.

I have family which are from third world countries. There is an on going epidemic for various crops world wide which is because of genetic manipulation of seeds and offspring. Bugs are become immune to the pesticides (etc) and since the plants are the same generation as 20 years ago no evolution has taken place to allow them to change (survival of the fittess).

Coffee, bananas, wheat, barley, and peanuts have all been affected and there are dozens more which I forget at this time. Let's not forget mentioning the problems with livestock and the long term effects of breeding the same stock over and over again.

In less than 50 years the world production of oil will max out. After this happens the amount of oil left in the ground will decrease expodentially. Prices for oil will skyrocket and gasoline will reach an all time high of hundreds of dollars per gallon. Eventually on the extremely wealthy will be able to afford it. And the technology we currently have is not keeping up with the pace. We will run out of oil before we figure out that mass transportation would have been the best option for all the major cities of the world.

 

 

So we have challenges to deal with. In what way does killing 2/3rds of the worlds population solve any of these problems? The remaining 1/3 is still going to farm, still raise cattle, and still use oil. You have slaughtered billions of people and not solved any of the problems you have listed. It is akin to saying "Well, people breaking their legs is a problem- I know lets kill 2/3rds of them."  Really, WTF? 

 

 

The question is, what would those 1/3 remaining people think killed the others? What would they do after they regrouped? Would there be enough people remaining in one location to form a new country? government?

Think about all the possible results if 2/3rds of the entire world population died suddenly. That's 4.62 billion people dead leaving 2.4 billion remaining across the entire planet. It would be quite a eye opener.

Yes, there might be small pockets of people saying, "oh this is a sign from god" but I think there would be more "gezus, what did we do to upset the environment? was this a virus or pollution?"

I think people would be more worried about surviving. This sort of thing would set the human race behind thousands of years. Power plants would fail, animals would increase by eating the dead bodies, cities would be over run with rats and other rodents for a brief time until nature balanced things out.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 In what way does killing 2/3rds of the worlds population solve any of these problems?

   Because it clearly reduces logistical requirements upon resources that are in no way infinite.  

Not necessarily. Imagine the impact on our current logistical system if 2/3rds of the people who operate disappeared overnight. Suddenly distributing food even in countries with large surpluses like the US would become difficult. It takes people to grow crops, prepare, transport and preserve food. So while you are reducing demand, you are crippling supply at least in the short term. The initial shock and confusion would certainly lead to an inconsistent distribution. While starvation in the US might be limited because of our large natural supply our exports would be completely stopped for a period of time leading to starvation in other countries. Life for the remaining 1/3rd would become extremely difficult and it would take time for our supply systems to absorb that kind of shock.

 

We would basically be going back to a 1930's world population. It is likely that with such a large drop in population that the population growth rate would increase across the world. Human labor would become far more expensive and therefore encourage larger families because kids could help work and help support the family. In another 80 years the population would be right back where it is now give or take a few hundred million, so for things like oil you might add a few decades before we hit peak oil but not a lot.   

It would be worse than the 1930's. You'd be losing medical as well as food; and don't forget the issue with other logisitcal issues like roaming bands of lawless assholes wanting to rape and pillage because there is no law to protect.

I think you are lookin at more of a 1880's with minor improvements on transportation and housing. It isn't like there was a nuclear bomb went off. You would find alot of empty houses, lots of canned goods in the stores, fresh bottled water, water filters, generators at the home depot.

It would be a real fight to survive and it would change the attitude of those remaining. The question is would the human race learn and grow in a way which was progressive and positive?

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4438
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Yes,

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Yes, there might be small pockets of people saying, "oh this is a sign from god" but I think there would be more "gezus, what did we do to upset the environment? was this a virus or pollution?"

I think you have too much faith in humanity. When whatever remaining scientists couldn't come up with a plausible explanation I suspect that most people would turn to religion. Suddenly 2/3rds of people just tip over dead? Many people would interpret that as the rapture and honestly I'm not sure I could blame them, especially when improbable events like a plane landing on its own without a pilot happen. With that the idea of a virus or pollution can be summarily dismissed leaving aliens, god or super secret government plot among the more likely contenders. When something that freaky happens and leaves no evidence of what caused it you either say god did it or admit that you have no explanation and live with not knowing. History has shown that when there is no known explanation most humans turn to god. 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Yes, there might be small pockets of people saying, "oh this is a sign from god" but I think there would be more "gezus, what did we do to upset the environment? was this a virus or pollution?"

I think you have too much faith in humanity. When whatever remaining scientists couldn't come up with a plausible explanation I suspect that most people would turn to religion. Suddenly 2/3rds of people just tip over dead? Many people would interpret that as the rapture and honestly I'm not sure I could blame them, especially when improbable events like a plane landing on its own without a pilot happen. With that the idea of a virus or pollution can be summarily dismissed leaving aliens, god or super secret government plot among the more likely contenders. When something that freaky happens and leaves no evidence of what caused it you either say god did it or admit that you have no explanation and live with not knowing. History has shown that when there is no known explanation most humans turn to god. 

 

Rapture... I dislike that word. It's been abused and misused so many times.

No word of rapture appears in the bible and in the verse speaking of the "second coming" it is extremely vauge on what will happen.

Other than that...

1 - All planes will land because there will be one pilot alive.

2 - There will be dead bodies every place, so those who died did not "go up in to heaven" as most people believe will happen. There will be rotting corpses every where.

3 - Maybe some scientists who are alive might figure it out, but for the purpose of this question no human has this technology nor do they understand it.

4 - I believe it would be more likely that people will say pollution/virus/government cover up.

5 - When there is no known explanation it is either aliens, big foot or government coverup. Jesus is usually in last place on this stuff unless it is a grilled cheese sandwich or a "cross similarity found in the rubble of a burning building".

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Hypothetical question:

If you were presented with the techology that would destroy 2/3rds of the population of humans would you release it in order to reset the population.

The humans killed would be random, painless, instantly and no innocent people would be harmed (such as a pilot flying a plan who died, no one on board would die, the plane would land safely).

You can't tell others about this technology. If you try to or if you decide not to release this on to the human race, your memory will be erases and another person will be picked.

I guess you missed the memo. Malthus was fundamentally in error. But don't take my word for it. Just look at the impossibly huge population of the world today if he had been correct.

So why would anyone want to "reset" the world population? In 50 years there is going to be media hysteria over the world's rapidly declining population after a peak of 13-14 million in the 2050s. In fact in the 2040s the coming decline will be so obvious it will be difficult to get investment to increase food production to get over the peak. It will be nearly impossible to get infrastructure investment that will not pay for itself before the peak.

Keep in mind no one knows why the industrial revolution occurred or why it continues. There are no credible causal reasons. A simplistic reason is simply it took a large population before good ideas were passed on and explored instead of lost.

There is still talk of the singularity event in 2027. It depends upon having people working in the fields that will make it possible. Half the population half the number of people? Generally there have always been more jobs in science and engineering than there have been people so it is unclear how to encourage more people to go into those fields. The reality is there is no way to teach most people the scientific method and the problem appears genetic rather than social or cultural. Give computers to bush country African tribes and they produce nerds. So did India. Culture may help but it is not necessary.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml