There is a lot of talk about vaccines, pandemics, mass graves, and so on. This might happen in the developed world, but what about the rest of the world?

You see, military technology today would be able to wipe out most of the world's population in one day. Why don't they? Because many people in the developed world would be screaming "genocide" and "brutality" and so on. Who would be screaming that, if for example, all of Asia was destroyed in one day?

That's right! The same people who would be against wiping Asia off the map, are the same who would be waiting in line for the "swine flu vaccine" ... aka, their last vaccine.

What a great plan! Kill those against war first, then kill everyone else.

They already do many things to try to depopulate the earth. Abortion, refusing the elderly medical care because they are too old, poverty, wars; our whole society is set up to cause stress. This could lead to suicides. They have so many weapons at their disposal they will just keep coming at us until we are all dead.
I am going to fight no matter what.
I know I sound cynical but I woke to up a world that I do not agree with.

Originally posted by bettermakings
There is a lot of talk about vaccines, pandemics, mass graves, and so on. This might happen in the developed world, but what about the rest of the world?

You see, military technology today would be able to wipe out most of the world's population in one day. Why don't they? Because many people in the developed world would be screaming "genocide" and "brutality" and so on. Who would be screaming that, if for example, all of Asia was destroyed in one day?

That's right! The same people who would be against wiping Asia off the map, are the same who would be waiting in line for the "swine flu vaccine" ... aka, their last vaccine.

What a great plan! Kill those against war first, then kill everyone else.

S&F for you my friend

One would have to wonder. What is this all for at the end?

Too late. The depopulation of North America has already begun.

Soft Drinks, Twinkies, potato chips, super-size McDonald's meals, driving everywhere instead of walking. Obesity epidemic, massive drug use, alcoholism, prescription drugs for EVERYTHING.

Now all the perpetrators of this fiendish plot have to do is just sit back and wait a while.

If they dont like the world, they should just kill themselfs instead of killing the world.

Makes more sense, no?

Originally posted by Copernicus

If they dont like the world, they should just kill themselfs instead of killing the world.

Makes more sense, no?

It isn't that they don't like the world.
It is that they don't like you in it.

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by Copernicus

If they dont like the world, they should just kill themselfs instead of killing the world.

Makes more sense, no?

It isn't that they don't like the world.
It is that they don't like you in it.

Trust me, they wont like the ones who get to survive either. The problem lies with them, not us. In the end, there is only one man standing with their way of life. Everybody else has turned on eachother.

The fact of the matter is, the world is overpopulated. Those in third world countries reproduce the most (mainly on the African continent). The population growth of most first world countries is pretty negligible, and a few have negative population growths.

At first blush one might think education about birth control is the answer, but this requires willing participation by those who reproduce most; I think the effect of this would be negligible.

The only options left are pretty crappy ones: genocide and mass sterilization. Mass sterilization has logistical problems (how do you deliver the sterilizing agent, how do you make sure enough people are exposed, etc.). This leaves the OP's theory: bomb the hell out of Africa and Asia. It's not an option that I personally would choose, but I can see those in power deciding that this was the only way to save the planet.

It's a conundrum, that's for sure.

You know, I wonder about depop theories. See, TPTB are only so powerful because there are so many of us with no power who can be economically or physically coerced into doing their bidding, so they play whilst we work.
Wealth is relative tho. If you've got a loaf & someone else hasn't, you can exercise power over them. But if there was so much space in the world not being used by our huge population, the loafless could just wander off & find some wild food...
See what I'm saying? Wealth only works when it is scarce. After a mass depopulation, the rich would have to actually do their own work, because how could they prevent people from just leaving to start a new life working for themselves? Uber-police? Where is the incentive for the police to do such a job?
Deliberate depop makes no sense.

Thank you for the comments (of such a variety of opinions).

I don't think the world is very overpopulated. Certain places are (Egypt, India, etc.), but generally the world has enough resources for at least 10 billion. The problem is controlling and organizing the large number, with most of the 10 billion wanting to live in luxury like North Americans often do. The world couldn't support EVERYONE living in luxury, only a handful.

My point was:

The future would contain 2 types of people, the "primitives" and the "civilized". Very shortly, this century, machines would be able to do all the work. The "civilized" would all be living in luxury, and the "primitives" would be living the way humans evolved to live, in nature.

For example, the future of America would have a small number of "civilized" people living in luxury in a few cities. The rest of the country would be full of "primitives" trying to survive on a day-to-day basis.

The wild areas of The South (Appalachia, Louisiana-swamps, etc.) will likely still have "primitives" hunting deer, fishing, making moonshine, etc.. They will live separate from the "civilized" people of the cities.

A whole world like that (similar to a 3rd world country, with no middle-class) would naturally have a VERY low population. I estimate in America, for example, 5 million "civilized" people with extremely low birth-rates, and another 5 million "primitives" who are struggling to survive, have high infant-mortality, low life expectancy, etc... and if the "primitive" population gets too high, or the "civilized" gets too low, they just "civilize" a few "primitives" for the sake of balance.

Think "Brave New World"...

Originally posted by bettermakings
I don't think the world is very overpopulated. Certain places are (Egypt, India, etc.), but generally the world has enough resources for at least 10 billion.

In physics, we say it's not the number that overly important, it's the trend. It's going to take a relatively short time to go from 10 to 20. This happens in face of actual resource crisis, such as deepening shortage of fresh water due to climate change, soil erosion etc.

The future would contain 2 types of people, the "primitives" and the "civilized". Very shortly, this century, machines would be able to do all the work. The "civilized" would all be living in luxury, and the "primitives" would be living the way humans evolved to live, in nature.

And how would you enforce such segregation?

Nah, I just dont see Brave New World. That would be scientists solution.
1 thing we can count on those who have wealth & power to do is try to stay on top of the heap. That requires a heap to be on top of...