Population reduction: Why not?

Slackwire, why post a thread that suggests “culling” a population as a means for addressing world overpopulation, at all, if you really meant enacting practices that gradually reduce population? They're two radically different things and you know this. You’ve clearly and justifiably elicited the critical responses you’ve gotten and your arguments of defense have been squarely shot down.
Though I, too, believe the Earth is, overpopulated, your radical ideas are utterly abhorrent. Take the beating that your critical respondents (Terran Blue, Ruiner, Bigbert81, Shorty, Astyanax, Britguy and others) have dealt you and move on.

Yes because we cannot make enough food even though we are paying farmers to not grow food. Overpopulation is a myth and a fraud used by radical environmentalists advocating global culling. The entire population of the world could fit in Texas with each person having the same amount of room as a typical home with a population density of Paris, France. As technology gets better we can feed more people with less land and require less resources. Humans can expand their resource base unlike an animal.

Originally posted by Terran Blue



Er, not really...

Er, yea.

LOL... and so it is, that you have resorted to the nasties.

That is not a nasty, that is an observation. So far you have used nothing but head up ass logic .

The point being, that your attempts to impress, shame or intimidate me with your "I have served my country, have you" BS are wasted, because you are dealing with people smarter than the plebs you are used to dealing with.

Really? Where are these alleged smart people? So far all I have seen is a few cliquish rejects.

Obviously not, as they seem to be making you mad. What can I say? Diddums

Your little attempt at annoyance are quite pathetic. They are not even deserving of the term troll, much like in the rest of your life, you have failed miserably.

Who said I was playing the race card? I was merely trying to acertain as to whether or not your BS is racial in nature. And btw, pointing out if someone is a racist or not is not being foolish, if said person is racially motivated. Neither is asking if someone is racist.

If someone truly were racist, you wouldnt need to ask. I havent asked you if you are mildly retarded, because that too is an obvious yes.

Er, clearly origin DOES mean something to you, as you are advocating wiping out much of the population of Africa, simply for being poor.

It has nothing to do with their socioeconomic status, it has to do with their inability to move from 3rd world to a simple civilized status. Those people, much like you and your family are useless and not deserving of oxygen.

Can I ask, are you one of those socialist retards who preach "tolerance" and "peace"?

In direct response to the above question the answer is no, I am not a socialist in the true meaning of the term, but I guess I am what you would refer to as a Liberal in some areas. No I am not a retard... oh, and btw, do you advocate wiping out the physically/mentally/sensory disabled too? Ala Hitler? And finally, I encourage tolerance and understanding, not mass murder, like you.

You encourage tolerance? Odd, those who preach it normally dont practice it, much like you have shown your lack of it in this thread.

Originally posted by C0bzz


Yes, that is genocide, and what your promoting is killing 6 billion people because you find 6 billion people unmanagable. Well, it is managable, and we're getting there. Look at any 3rd world countries health and education... they are slowly getting better.

If its manageable, why are millions starving to death every year?

My argument isnt faltering, I have facts, stats, and truth on my side.

Any proposals on how to kill 6 billion people?

I never said anything about killing 6 billion people. Get your facts straight before you make a fool of yourself again.



[edit on 18-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Corbin Dalus
Slackwire, why post a thread that suggests “culling” a population as a means for addressing world overpopulation, at all, if you really meant enacting practices that gradually reduce population? They're two radically different things and you know this. You’ve clearly and justifiably elicited the critical responses you’ve gotten and your arguments of defense have been squarely shot down.
Though I, too, believe the Earth is, overpopulated, your radical ideas are utterly abhorrent. Take the beating that your critical respondents (Terran Blue, Ruiner, Bigbert81, Shorty, Astyanax, Britguy and others) have dealt you and move on.

What beating would that be? The alleged shooting down of facts by these alleged "smart people"

It's clear they know absolutely nothing on this issue, they respond with emotion instead of intellect.

Those who lead with emotion are doomed.

Next time I need advice from you, i will ask. Until then, shut it.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
Yes because we cannot make enough food even though we are paying farmers to not grow food. Overpopulation is a myth and a fraud used by radical environmentalists advocating global culling. The entire population of the world could fit in Texas with each person having the same amount of room as a typical home with a population density of Paris, France. As technology gets better we can feed more people with less land and require less resources. Humans can expand their resource base unlike an animal.

Have any solutions to the U.S. energy problem genius? What about the upcoming water shortage in the Southwestern U.S.? If millions relocate to the SW, the water supply will run out exponentially faster than it currently is.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
The entire population of the world could fit in Texas with each person having the same amount of room as a typical home with a population density of Paris, France.

Ahahahaha. Actually the study you are referring to would give everyone exactly 2 square feet of space. Know of any homes that are 2 sq. ft?

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by spinstopshere
Yes because we cannot make enough food even though we are paying farmers to not grow food. Overpopulation is a myth and a fraud used by radical environmentalists advocating global culling. The entire population of the world could fit in Texas with each person having the same amount of room as a typical home with a population density of Paris, France. As technology gets better we can feed more people with less land and require less resources. Humans can expand their resource base unlike an animal.

Have any solutions to the U.S. energy problem genius? What about the upcoming water shortage in the Southwestern U.S.? If millions relocate to the SW, the water supply will run out exponentially faster than it currently is.

Wow such hostility. Do not come here if you do not want to be picked apart. If you are just going to respond with insults and baiting then maybe you should just leave.

Easy have you heard of a little country called Kuwait. They have water purification plants. I live next to an ocean so build a few of those no problem. For energy we have plenty of it just are not using it. I also advocate the use of alternative energy.

Originally posted by spinstopshere


Wow such hostility. Do not come here if you do not want to be picked apart. If you are just going to respond with insults and baiting then maybe you should just leave.

Easy have you heard of a little country called Kuwait. They have water purification plants. I live next to an ocean so build a few of those no problem. For energy we have plenty of it just are not using it. I also advocate the use of alternative energy.

If you dont like what I say, maybe you should just leave.

There was no hostility, you simply came off as thinking you have all the answers which you do not.

Plenty of energy? really? So those rolling blackouts during the summertime are just the energy companies way of showing off?

Water desalinazation? hahaha, ok I'm sure the water authorities never thought of that one.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by slackerwire]

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by spinstopshere


Wow such hostility. Do not come here if you do not want to be picked apart. If you are just going to respond with insults and baiting then maybe you should just leave.

Easy have you heard of a little country called Kuwait. They have water purification plants. I live next to an ocean so build a few of those no problem. For energy we have plenty of it just are not using it. I also advocate the use of alternative energy.

There was no hostility, you simply came off as thinking you have all the answers which you do not.

Plenty of energy? really? So those rolling blackouts during the summertime are just the energy companies way of showing off?

It is untapped energy. We have plenty of oil but enviornuts won't let us touch it. I also advocate more solar and wind power plants be built. Nuclear power is also something that should be used.

Also i would be an arrogant fool if i claimed to have all the answers. i am just saying the problem is not as extreme as we are led to believe when we have to pay people to not grow food. Americans are wasteful people. We could feed millions if we wanted to.

Usually I won’t post anything on this topic. Since I am bored here it is “we need more people”. Why because this is are only survivals? I think this is how God intention is to multiply and multiply, it is in the bible.

HI All,

I could not help but notice that this was a fairly heated discussion. I did not realize that this would be such a serious topic until I read through it. I see 2 basic views given herein. On one side there are those who believe that someone should take that side of god and delete a portion of the populous. In addition to deciding nearly exactly who will be part of the unlucky millions on the list. On the other side we have the group who believes that the extermination of human lives and who those will be is a repulsive thought to stomach.

If I might interject my opinion, I believe there is a third view that no one has considered.

In response to the original posters questions: Why Not?

2 Words. Natural Selection.

I understand that Wikipedia’s “ Text Book “ definition for the term describes this as a process by which favorable traits become more common in successive generations and unfavorable traits become less common. However, considering this definition, would it not also be possible to apply this theory to a larger scale. Instead of dealing with genetics it deals with life on a much grander scale.

Let’s say for the sake of the argument that 65 million years ago a HUGE rock, or meteor, or comet, or what ever the hell it was impacted the Yucatan Peninsula and killed off all of the dinosaurs. Furthermore, consider again for the sake of argument that the story of the Great Flood from the bible did in fact happen and killed off all of the life that was not aquatic. And, how about the Bubonic Plague which had taken its part in population control by killing off an estimated 75 million people.

My point with those examples is to demonstrate that life finds a way to live or die naturally.

Now, why would the government or anyone who has the money and resources to do a feasibility study and have the ability to carry this horrendous act out waste the time money and resources when this can all be done naturally? Is there any chance that hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and basically any other natural destructive force is God’s version of population control? What IF we are already past due for another cataclysmic event?

I personally believe because of certain facts that the U.S. Government has at least considered a mass population control. Wouldn’t it be funny in an ironic way if the government engaged in such tactics only to find that the byproduct of their extermination efforts would reverberate and cause a mass extinction of humankind to include those who made the decisions and their loved ones?

In conclusion it is of my opinion that no one on the planet has any right to make those determinations. If those people would take some time and be patient the “ Natural Selection “ Process will take its course in a Non-Discriminate, Non-Prejudice way.

Forcing folks to have kids or not is kind of border line communist. Let the people breed, then we will have to force our selves out into space. necesity is the mother of invention, is it no?

Theres an experiment that I had heard of, growing bacteria in a petri dish with finite resources. They just keep happily reproducing, exponentially, until all of a sudden, the food(resources) is all gone. Then there is a huge population die off, a bunch of cannibalism, and finally the population stabilizes at a sustainable level. Do you really suppose it will be any different on a macro scale?

Mother nature has a few tricks up her sleeve as well. Read once about disease experts saying the really nasty stuff like the plague and such need a base population of "X" to be able to spread fast enough to infect others before it kills the host. They said we have yet to see the diseases that require some of the higher population densities. Imagine a virus that kills in a few hours unleashed in a city of 100 million. They already exist, Ebola can wipe out a whole village but if it happens out in the sticks and nobody gets out to spread it, it basically contains itself.

Zod is pleased that you squabble over Zods planet Zod sure enjoys his deathmatches between nations who say they love peace this makes Zods conquest easier soon the republic of Zod shall take place LoL j/k but i like this idea of human hunting a mortal kombat if you will

How about we start with the reduction of the US poulation-by sending and stopping all the illegals from entering,and deporting them back to their contries-----and im not talking about immigrants,--immigrants come to this country legally-----these are blatent criminals that need to be delt with--they thumb their noses and wave their flags at us--and we take it---and on top of that we will all be paying for them and their children

i just put my daughter in a english as a second language school---wtf i pay taxes and was denied tranfering her to a diffrent school--all i wanted was a better education for my little girl----and guess why i couldnt move her to a better school in my area--because to mant students in that one-and guess what they are mexican nationals

and not to shoot a dead horse--people say--"well they are only doing the jobs we dont want to do"---wll heres a news flash-they are migrating into trade and tech jobs and the american worker is hurting due to the hourly wage diffrence----i myself am in a high tech environmental position--we know are replacing our higher paid employees --with mexicans and mexican translators----whose to blame--think about it...why pay a american 22.00 a hour,when they can pay someone else 12.00--its happening now--and everyone is asleep....

In all fairness, I do not believe that the OP is advocating direct genocide, although I can certainly see how his or her posts could be interpreted as such. Rather, I suspect that he or she is endorsing a policy that favors what he or she perceives to be the most productive, contributive people, while allowing the least productive among humanity to wane and in time, balance the human population of the planet against the "carrying capacity" thereof. Such policies and direct genocide are (though some would say arguably) not the same thing.

That having been said, while I have an understanding and profound respect for all of the views expressed in this thread, I myself must disagree with the OP. In my opinion, the sanctity of human life is universal, and is a right rather than a privilege. Earlier in the thread the OP stated that if someone of relative means offered to aid them and their group, he or she would allow this, but would not do the same for one who could contribute nothing. I understand and respect that stance, however I do not share it. I would rather die than kill, and I would rather suffer the burden of someone unable to contribute anything to my quality of life, than increase their suffering in order to preserve my own comfort or quality of life. In my eyes, humanity is a single entity. The other human beings inhabiting this planet may not see each other that way, and may not treat one another with such regard, but I possess the power to choose to see us as such, and I do so. For me, there are no borders or ethnic divisions. Those lines, in my opinion, exist in our consciousness, both individual and collective, and only remain institutional realities because we allow them to persist therein.

Now, all that also having been said: do I have a better solution? No. Will I attack the OP for his or her beliefs? Absolutely not. It is entirely possible that I am misguided and that there is no solution to the dilemma of overpopulation other than policies like those which the OP advocates. I am humble enough to refrain from declaring my view absolute in its merits or superior to anyone else's. In addition I do support, and would not oppose, policies which strongly encourage and perhaps even reward adoption before pregnancy, and which encourage limiting the number of offspring per household and/or family. I am undecided as to whether such measures could or should be made mandatory, however.

"My argument isnt faltering, I have facts, stats, and truth on my side."

Fine words. Yet the one who uttered them has yet to produce a single fact, statistic or truth to support his -- faltering? I'd have said stillborn -- argument.

Allow me to do the honours where he has failed.

He suggests that 'third world countries', particularly African ones, are a drain on the resources of his nation and that their populations should be 'culled' in order to secure and perpetuate the 'lifestyle' he so evidently regards as the inalienable, God-given right of all Americans. He also suggests that third world countries are less 'productive' than America and that this lack of productivity is somehow an argument for their depopulation.

Well, productivity is measured variously, making direct comparisons from country to country difficult, and in any case rich countries are going to come out on top of total factor productivity (TFP) tables for obvious historical reasons. So let's look, instead, at a contextually more meaningful measure of productivity: GDP growth per capita.

How's Africa doing? In particular the sub-Saharan part of it whose poverty and idleness so exercises slackerwire's ire and disgust?

Well, according to this source,

Data in World Development Indicators 2006 (published by the World Bank) show a remarkable recovery in Sub-Saharan Africa's growth since 2000. Twenty of the region's 48 countries grew by more than five percent in 2004... fifteen non-oil-producing countries have had a median growth rate of 5.3 percent since 1995, demonstrating their potential for long-term growth.

5.3 percent? Gosh, that's quite impressive. How, by comparison, did the USA perform?

Well, in 2004 (a rather good year by recent standards), the US GDP grew by 3.1 percent.

Hmmm.

Here are some other growth figures for 'third world' countries for the same year, taken from the same source. Incidentally, data at this site is taken from CIA Factbooks.

- Equatorial Guinea 20.00
- Chad 15.00
- China 9.10
- Botswana 7.60
- India 7.60
- Vietnam 7.30
- Angola 7.14
- Mozambique 7.00
- Sierra Leone 6.50
- Sudan 6.10
- Madagascar 6.00
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the 6.00
- Bangladesh 5.30
- Tanzania 5.20
- Ghana 4.80
- Burkina Faso 4.60
- Mauritania 4.50
- Philippines 4.50

Funny how all those 'unproductive' third world economies are growing faster than America's.

But wait a minute. Aren't they growing as a result of all the American aid that's being pumped into them? Taxpayers' dollars, that should be being spent to the benefit of US citizens and businesses, not pumped down the third world toilet and wasted on all those unproductive, dark-skinned, heathen freeloaders?

Well, not exactly. Let's look a little more closely at American overseas aid, shall we?

All the 'facts, stats and truth' quoted below are taken from a single source: Tarnoff, C. and Nowels, N: Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy. The document was produced in 2004 for the US State Department by the Congressional Research Service of the US Library of Congress (I am using 2004 figures because they are the latest ones that are widely available, not because they particularly support my arguments). Let's start by asking:


Q: What proportion of America's resources is devoted to foreign aid, and has that proportion being rising or falling?

A: A laughably tiny amount, and it's been falling for decades.

By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States declined for several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an alltime low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction) for FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s. The 0.2% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid obligations in the past two years, however, is among the smallest amounts in the last half-century (my emphasis). The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in dollar terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated as a percent of gross national income.

0.2 percent. Two thousandths of America's gross national income. To save this derisory proportion (a total of under US$21 billion), slackerwire wants to 'cull' half Earth's population or more.

Here is a chart that shows just how small a piece of the American national pie is offered to those in need of assistance in other parts of the world:



And here, from the same source, is a chart that illustrates the decline in American international assistance since the Second World War.



For its size, the US is the stingiest international lender:

Even when it led in dollar amounts of aid flows to developing countries, the United States was often among the last when aid transfers by developed country donors were calculated by percent of gross national product.

21 billion dollars is still, I admit, a lot of money. But let's ask another question.


Q: How much of this 'aid' can actually be regarded as charity?

A: On the most charitable viewing of the statistics, about half. In reality, much, much less.

There are five major categories of foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic contributions, and military aid...

In 2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 150 countries. Israel and Egypt continue... as the largest recipients, although Iraq... is the biggest recipient in FY2004. The importance of Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident, with Bolivia, Peru, and... Colombia among the top U.S. aid recipients. The... use of foreign aid to support the war on terrorism is clearly seen in the country-aid allocations for FY2004. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia are key partners in the war on terrorism...

In FY2004, Congress appropriated $5.4 billion, 26% of total assistance, for five major programs whose primary purpose is to meet special U.S. economic, political, or security interests...

Congress appropriated $4.8 billion for military assistance in FY2004, 23% of total U.S. foreign aid.

In other words, about half this 'aid' is actually spent in reinforcing US military and economic might and in providing military hardware and training to 'friendly' governments (who may not be at all friendly towards their own people). It has nothing to do with charity.

Here's another instructive graphic from the source:



Post continues below...

[edit on 19-8-2007 by Astyanax]

Yet, even when all the self-interest dollars are subtracted, there's still a good $10bn. or so to be disbursed to the wretched of the earth whom slackerwire insists would be better off dead. So on to Question Number Three:


Q: How much American aid money actually reaches poor folk in third world countries?

A: Precious little. Most U.S. foreign aid is used for procurement of U.S. goods and services...

In FY2004, roughly 87%... of military aid financing will be used for procurement of U.S. military equipment and training...

Food assistance commodities are purchased wholly in the United States, and most expenditures for shipping those commodities... go entirely to U.S. freight companies... A rough estimate suggests that more than 90% of food aid expenditures will be spent in the United States...

81% of total USAID procurement between October 2002 and September 2003 under these programs came from U.S. sources.

So what's left, when the American consultants', contractors', suppliers' and shippers' bills are paid, out of that $20bn? Two billion dollars? That seems like a fair guess, given the figures supplied by various authoritative departments of the United States Government.

Bearing that figure in mind, let's remind ourselves what slackerwire considers a 'reasonable' global population:

Originally posted by slackerwire
I believe between 1.5 and 2 billion people would be a fair number.

The current population of Earth is usually estimated at six billion. So for each 'unproductive' third world layabout 'culled' by Young Adolf here, he'll save his country... fifty cents.

[edit on 19-8-2007 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by slackerwire
That is not a nasty, that is an observation. So far you have used nothing but head up ass logic .

Define for us, O NeoHitler, what exactly 'head-up-ass logic' is. The fact is, you resent me calling you out for being an elitist, bigoted little fool who dreams of mass murder, and have resorted to childish insulting comments. What's wrong? Has the world slighted you in some way? Feeling a little bitter? Want some payback?

Really? Where are these alleged smart people? So far all I have seen is a few cliquish rejects.

Oh no.... once again, your insults cut so deeply.... ROFL

I'll tell you what, if you're so smart, then why is it that since my first post I have led you to reveal exactly what I wanted you to reveal? Surely if you're so mentally agile, you would not have been led into this situation, not only by myself, but by others in this thread who have seen right through your thin veil of pretending to be a social scientist who is actively interested in protecting the species.

Your little attempt at annoyance are quite pathetic.

Yeah, but it has obviously worked hasn't it? Anyone reading your past few posts can see we have gotten to you, and your half arsed attempts to 'rise above it' in your eyes is just showing that I really am getting to you.

And consider this: If my attempts are pathetic, and yet you are rising to them, what does that make YOU?

They are not even deserving of the term troll

Damn, and I was working so hard for that tag...

much like in the rest of your life, you have failed miserably

Ah yes, the last resort of the pseudointellectual; to condescend to others and attempt to belittle their lives. Did you feel a little better after typing that? Give you a little ego-boost?

If someone truly were racist, you wouldnt need to ask.

Oh I didn't need to ask for my benefit. I was just laying the possibility on the table for those reading this who may not have considered that you may be.

I havent asked you if you are mildly retarded, because that too is an obvious yes.

Yes, so hurtful you are...

But that reminds me... do you advocate the deaths of all who are disabled? I note you failed to respond to that question.

Er, clearly origin DOES mean something to you, as you are advocating wiping out much of the population of Africa, simply for being poor.

It has nothing to do with their socioeconomic status, it has to do with their inability to move from 3rd world to a simple civilized status.

And thus we see truly how uninformed you REALLY are, living in your cosy little bubble. Perhaps you should do a little research into the actions of western governments and corporations in Africa, and see what people there struggle against daily, while you sit at home in your comfortable house/apartment/trailer/whatever and call for their deaths. And also, I should point out, that there are actually areas of Africa which can be described as 'civilised' (using what I would take to be your definition of the term).

Those people, much like you and your family are useless and not deserving of oxygen.

Ah, the insults are coming thick and fast now. Thus proving that my efforts to get into your head have been entirely successful. Whats wrong? Don't like being highlighted as a wannabe Hitler?

But lets see... what input do you and your family have to society? Aside from planning death en masse of course.

You encourage tolerance? Odd, those who preach it normally dont practice it, much like you have shown your lack of it in this thread.

Well, you are at least half-right in this statement. I have not shown tolerance in this thread. Know why? Because you and your abhorrent views do not show tolerance, so they themselves, and those who spout them, are not worthy of having tolerance shown in return. Do as you would be done by.