Do YOU support the death of between 2 and 5 billion people?

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Do YOU support the death of between 2 and 5 billion people?

Read
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=441162&mesg_id=441162



If you answer choice 1 or 3, please state why.

[melody]

1. Insanity

There is no other choice beyond everyone surviving. It's a matter of
right utilization of resources. Only black-and-white thinkers insist
on doomsday scenarios (and I know that's not you, HypnoToad, just saying).

[Deja Q]

6. I posted this question as a direct response to B&W thinkers' philosophy.

And I agree, the best scenario wouldn't be so grossly horrible.

But they're the ones I wanted to appease with the OP. It's easy to say "Kill __________". It's hard to truly address any problem, and most of them can be solved if we chose to solve them.

And I'll lament, it gets easy at times thinking of doom and gloom. I won't let it win, however.

[DRoseDARs]

2. Well, as Bender Bending Rodriguez always says, "KILL ALL HUMANS!"

Except, maybe, Fry and Leela. They'd be good for a laugh.

[Deja Q]

7. Pretend that, in this thread, Bender's pic is replaced with Kerr Avon's.

:rofl:

[Generic Brad]

3. Only when I play "Destroy All Humans"

But in real life - I can't support calling for the death of even one person.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I voted no

I cannot support killing billions of people. I have no illusions, however, that it may well happen. And people have often asked me why I chose to have no children. Didn't everyone realize this is where we were headed 30-40 years ago?

[Deja Q]

8. At least one person did... (warning, contains graphic pic)

The one who write the "All in the Family" 5th season episode entitled "Gloria's Shock".

Fictional character Mike Stivic did not want a baby and told several reasons why. It's an interesting argument, also shoveled up from the dirt in the season 6 two-part opener as Gloria is really pregnant this time and Mike changes his mind (whoa boy)... but season 6 is where the series jumps the shark with product placement ads (the Xmas episode featured a tie-in to a real life game that got almost as much close-up camera attention than Archie himself...) and a product tie-in (an anatomically correct baby doll released that year.

[shadowknows69]

19. Wow, I didn't know that about you Aye

but I chose to not have kids for the same reasons. I suspect you and I traveled some of the same roads in other incarnations my friend. Or maybe it's just that damn Aquarian psychic streak we have that is telling us it's going to get much much worse before it gets better; if ever.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. Salaams to you, my friend

I have felt the same...and know that the Shadow does, indeed, know.

[toddaa]

5. Support? No

But nature doesn't really give a crap about what we want.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Wrong question-- what's to "support"....

a possible mass extermination of a large part of our species? Locally, we've been through disasters and wars that decimated whole populations and the only difference now is the scale.

The real question is-- when it hits the fan, what are you going to do about it?

There would be death and estruction on a massive scale but as all the disaster scenarios in doomsday fiction point out, there still should to be pockets of civilization somewhere so we don't have to start all over from scratch. History seems to have pointed this out, too.

But, history mainly points out that when calamity strikes, whether natural or manmade, it's really a crapshoot whether or not those pockets stick around long enough to do any good.

It would really suck if, after the first rash of destruction, a modern version of Vikings or Lombards run amok ripping everything down, and making firewood of whatever's left of 5,000 years of civilization.

Think of a new Pol Pot cleansing the whole world of what's left of the educated...

[TahitiNut]

10. Fair's fair.

Don't fuck with Mother Nature. :shrug:

[GliderGuider]

11. I don't "support" it, but I sure as hell expect it.

However, I answered "support", so I owe an explanation.

Like Matt Savinar, the author of the "Life After the Oil Crash" site referenced in the post linked above, I've done a lot of research over the last three years about what the hell is going on with the planet and how much of it we're responsible for. The conclusion I've come to is that humanity's activities have caused massive and irreversible damage to the planet's ecosphere. This is particularly evident in the erosion of our planet's resource bases and the overflow of our its waste sinks.

According to the writers of the the latest update of "Limits to Growth", humanity is already in a 25% overshoot situation, and our population and economies are still growing. This is by definition an unsustainable situation. Even worse, the longer we stay in this situation the worse the erosion of the earth's carrying capacity becomes. We face not just one or two problems, but a host of interlinked and mutually reinforcing difficulties called "The World Problematique". I identify this problem set more fully on my web site at http://www.paulchefurka.ca.

My research has led me to the conclusion that a decline of our civilization is unavoidable. In my opinion, humanity will be down to a billion members or less by 2100, no matter what we try to do. I think it will start by 2020 when oil depletion begins to bite. And I don't believe we can or will ever put in place mitigation strategies that are of the same scale as the problems we face.

I will be one of the culls. As a result, I don't "support" a die-off (whatever that means), but I do think that it's inevitable.

[brokensymmetry]

12. I voted for...

number 1. More for grins than anything else.

You see, it doesn't matter in the least whether I'm
for it, against it, ignore it, or just never see it.
Reality asserts itself, and could not care less about
what I want, believe, or expect.

People are capable of solving many problems - but notice
that the collective behavior of human-kind is essentially
the same as a yeast colony. We increase in number so long
as resources support the increase. We go into overshoot.
Next stop - dieoff.

Could people all decide to live small, have only one
child, cease eating meat, and a score of other things?
Sure. It could happen this very evening. But, it won't.

Could someone, somewhere create a table-top device that
was safe, cheap, and produced limitless amounts of clean
energy? Maybe. We'd just continue acting like a yeast
colony and increase our numbers some more.

Take a look at the global fisheries...

Consider the outlook for water...

Factor in oil...and climate change...

Now look at the various nations of the third world,
including much of the population of China and India.
Consider their aspirations to become SUV driving
quasi-Americans.

If you can look at all that and tell me there won't
be a dieoff, then I suppose we'll just have to wait
and see what comes. I expect that whoever the next
President might be, they will deserve our deepest
sympathy.

[Mojorabbit]

15. I voted for support

for the same reason. It does not matter what I want, but I do expect it to happen. It is why I am glad I have no children.

[CJCRANE]

13. Those who support it should be first in line. n/t

[brokensymmetry]

20. Considering what's coming...

I think I'll probably get chosen to participate
in the dieoff earlier rather than later. Again, it
doesn't matter what I want - it's just reality.
As I get older, I'll be easy prey.

I regard that as a good thing. Those
who are younger will see more of what's to come; they
probably won't enjoy it. In fact, they
may well envy those of us who got out before
the worst times hit.

[David__77]

14. I support a global population of 20 billion.

I think that's a reasonable, sustainable level. People are our greatest resource. And progressives should be pro-people.

[frogcycle]

26. you left off the sarcasm icon

[ellisonz]

32. Pass the...

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE!

:puke:

PS. I'm pro-death machine. :sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

16. If they were all doomsdayers, I'd be fucking DOWN with it.

[valerief]

17. Are there that many multimillionaires and billionaries in the world?

You see, I'd like to see them all eliminated, so that we can start over.

[Lilith Velkor]

18. Having between 2 and 5 billion immortals running around would be very annoying

..., so yes.

[flashlighter]

24. What?? That sounds like a perfect Zombie Army!

Can I get them to do my bidding?

[Lilith Velkor]

29. Not zombies. Vampires.

Vampires *suck,* dude.

[flashlighter]

21. Yes. We should kill all people not named Bob.

The HeadBob will then dole out the resources and land of all the evil non-Bobs. A BobCentric world is a happy world. Unfortunately, we will only last a generation, as we will have killed off all the women, but that generation will be totally free of NonBobs.

Praise Bob.

:silly:

[tomreedtoon]

22. Yes, if I get to choose and I get paid for it!

You post a blind post like this, you get what you catch.

I would really like to choose who lives and who dies, and although it would take the rest of my life to pick the 3-5 million you specified as the target number, I assure you that I would go to my own grave happy, knowing that the people who troubled me and the rest of the world would do so no more.

Just out of curiosity, what were you fishing for when you started this?

[flashlighter]

23. no, no, 3-5 BILLION people

Which would leave one billion people, which would pretty much obliterate all governments and borders.

I call North Dakota. I shall rename it Karenland, and I will outlaw pleated pants, beets and Republicans.

[BlooInBloo]

34. I don't know what world you live in, but on Earth it would leave 1.5-3.5 billion people.

[CJCRANE]

25. Wouldn't it just be easier

for the misanthropes to go find another planet? (And leave us teeming masses alone).

:shrug:

[gravity]

28. Well it's eventually going to happen

We are still confined by the laws of mothernature, and when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, it will begin to die off.

The ironic thing is that all the technology that allows us to support such huge world populations to begin with will end up killing us in the end.

[ends_dont_justify]

30. Death isn't a supportable candidate

I don't think anyone has got more votes than it has when the time comes for the decision of a life's end at any rate.

It is a part of nature. What isn't a part of nature is humanity's destructive way of living. I don't think people need to die -- I think they need to wake up.

[ellisonz]

31. 1

We're all going to die anyways. Bite my bitter bitter smoking soul.

:toast:

[krispos42]

33. As long as I'm not one of them, go for it

Anything that frees up traffic on the Highway 62/I-35W interchange!

(Just kidding, of course)

[Blashyrkh]

35. I voted yes.

Simply because populations of this number are unsustainable in the long term.

The only reason, the ONLY reason we (developed nations) can live the way we do is because billions of people live in poverty. ANYONE advocating a higher population is condemning developing nations to further exploitation for our privelege.

I'd rather see a global population of 2 billion all living in luxury, rather than a global population of 14 billion and 10 of those billion living in utter shit.

[CJCRANE]

36. High standard of living isn't everything.

I've lived in Africa and I've seen plenty of very poor but very happy* people. Everyone is equal in my opinion, whether they're living in a shack or a mansion.

On edit: maybe "cheerful" is a more accurate word than "happy", I don't think it's possible to truly know who is and isn't happy.