When will we start to cull humanity?
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
Kermit power said:
Life does indeed go on, but in the meantime, we're already starting to see significant impact on our lives because people don't understand the demographics.
An example of this is the number of people who voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop people coming to the UK. Wanting to be able to control and limit who comes is a perfectly viable position to hold, but limiting how many come, at the moment, is just not realistic, because we need the people.
And, pray tell, how many were in the former camp rather than the latter....?An example of this is the number of people who voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop people coming to the UK. Wanting to be able to control and limit who comes is a perfectly viable position to hold, but limiting how many come, at the moment, is just not realistic, because we need the people.
What we need is a major overhaul of the system. It isn't just us. All Western democracies are suffering the same issues. We need to start doing something about it now as when it gets forced, the outcomes are worse.
I completely agree that it's not just the UK - places like Italy are much further down the path than we are - and needing to do something before we lose all choice over what that something is is indeed critical.
oyster said:
mike74 said:
It perhaps might help if we at least stopped encouraging and generously rewarding the most feckless and irresponsible in society to breed.
I think you've missed the point of the thread to get across your pet view.Less breeding worsens the situation the OP describes.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Kermit power said:
You're absolutely right in saying that birth rates will plateau, but does that make the debate any less valid?
If things don't change, then the ratio of productive to non-productive people is going to become completely unsustainable, and for at least a number of generations people.
These sweeping predictions don't stand up. Even now the average worker in a western country could live on 50% of his salary and still have significant material advantages over someone from even 30 years ago. The growth in economic surplus has been vast, and could pay for a lot of healthcare, pensions and unproductive people. Counter intuitive as it may be, the more that prosperity spreads the more, not less, resources there are.If things don't change, then the ratio of productive to non-productive people is going to become completely unsustainable, and for at least a number of generations people.
It's a perfectly valid debate, but one best conducted with a grasp of the reality and an eye to deliberate and rational changes to accommodate the shifts we are living through. Not wild talk of culling the population before famine, war and pestilence do for us all.
The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
mike74 said:
It perhaps might help if we at least stopped encouraging and generously rewarding the most feckless and irresponsible in society to breed.
THIS! Absolutely 100% this! Utterly bizarre situation, and tantamount to reversing Darwin's theory of evolution.
We now have the brightest who can't afford to breed, and the thickest and most feckless who can't afford not to!
Ari said:
THIS! Absolutely 100% this!
Utterly bizarre situation, and tantamount to reversing Darwin's theory of evolution.
We now have the brightest who can't afford to breed, and the thickest and most feckless who can't afford not to!
I don't think you are seeing that clearly. It's a "U" shape. The rich breed just fine. They don't much like the middle classes snapping at their heels, but are fine with a large labouring class.Utterly bizarre situation, and tantamount to reversing Darwin's theory of evolution.
We now have the brightest who can't afford to breed, and the thickest and most feckless who can't afford not to!
"We" are encouraging exactly the type of breeding that "we" want.
Kermit power said:
Where is this vast economic surplus?
The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
What is the net worth of the same people? Average income? Productivity?The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
The surplus is in many places. I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my 40s and can remember people talking about 2 car families. The television. The annual holiday. Pensioners who couldn't afford heating. A mobile phone being a clunky novelty for yuppies and show offs. Conputers and the internet being a specialist hobby for geeks. We are massively prosperous on many measures and getting more so. And all while paying for a wasteful state sector and badly organised pension system.
And while we have been doing this fewer people are starving, fewer people are living in abject poverty. Millions more have access to clean water, education, healthcare and other things that they didn't in my lifetime.
Yes the debt is huge but £84k + £62k is £146k. A modest mortgage which can be paid off in the same way.
I agree that it is absolutely scandalous that people born today will be paying for our profligacy one way or another for decades to come but it's a problem to be dealt with, not a pretext for genocide. As massive problems go it's preferable to fascism or nuclear communism.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Kermit power said:
Where is this vast economic surplus?
The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
What is the net worth of the same people? Average income? Productivity?The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
The surplus is in many places. I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my 40s and can remember people talking about 2 car families. The television. The annual holiday. Pensioners who couldn't afford heating. A mobile phone being a clunky novelty for yuppies and show offs. Conputers and the internet being a specialist hobby for geeks. We are massively prosperous on many measures and getting more so. And all while paying for a wasteful state sector and badly organised pension system.
And while we have been doing this fewer people are starving, fewer people are living in abject poverty. Millions more have access to clean water, education, healthcare and other things that they didn't in my lifetime.
Yes the debt is huge but £84k + £62k is £146k. A modest mortgage which can be paid off in the same way.
I agree that it is absolutely scandalous that people born today will be paying for our profligacy one way or another for decades to come but it's a problem to be dealt with, not a pretext for genocide. As massive problems go it's preferable to fascism or nuclear communism.
Randy Winkman said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
V1nce Fox said:
mondeoman said:
Kermit power said:
crankedup5 said:
Bloody hell, I find it troubling that any sane person even harbours such thoughts as the OP.
Really?Go and read a few basics on population statistics and you'll start to ask yourself how any sane person can NOT be thinking about it.
We can't carry on as we are, as the planet simply cannot sustain unbridled population growth, but especially in the West, we now have population demographics which can't be sustained without it.
It's a fundamental dichotomy, and the only way to resolve it is through some form of selective population reduction.
You might say "just have fewer children", but that's still going to cause a lot of death amongst the elderly and infirm, as there won't be enough people to care for their needs.
It's not insanity to think these thoughts. Insanity is carrying on sticking our heads in the sand to avoid them.
There will be those, who will acquire far more than their `equal' share. A larger group with more or less what they started with, but the largest group will be those with little or nothing left of their `equal' share.
This is because `equal shares' is based on the myth, that humans are all equal. Some are intelligent, some are dumb, some are hard working, some are terminally lazy. some are fit and healthy, others are ill, or disabled. Some are physically strong others are weak. some have a strong work ethic, others will do whatever they can to live off the efforts of others. Getting a third world person to accept the life of a first world person would be easy, but getting a first world person to accept the life style of a second world (let alone a third world person) is going to be difficult if not impossible. Even if it could be achieved what good would it do?
When a third world person acquires any wealth, they are not going to sit there, still being poor, when they can acquire goods, or services they could not afford before, that will make their lives better (and we are not in any kind of position to say they should not). so the end result will be even faster and greater consumption of the Earths finite resources.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Sunday 26th June 10:49
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Kermit power said:
I fully agree. The first thing is reaching an understanding that we cannot continue our unchecked growth as a species indefinitely. Either we stop it, or nature will step in and stop it for us.
The second part, then, is understanding that ultimately it's not about you, me or anyone else as an individual, but about society as a whole. The one difference where we're truly different from other species, I think, is that we've developed the ability to hoard resources at an individual level that allow us to extend our own lives beyond the point where we're able to independently support ourselves, but even that only goes so far.
I think the first part is determining if we are actually continuing with unchecked growth. We are not. Birth rates are in decline just about everywhere, and will very likely peak this century. The second part, then, is understanding that ultimately it's not about you, me or anyone else as an individual, but about society as a whole. The one difference where we're truly different from other species, I think, is that we've developed the ability to hoard resources at an individual level that allow us to extend our own lives beyond the point where we're able to independently support ourselves, but even that only goes so far.
As for resources, the price mechanism will sort this out long before we reach any absolute limit for most commodities.
The only thing which is in decline, is the rate at which the global population was increasing.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Birth rates are not in decline, For that to be true, the net population level would need to be going down, but it is not. it is still rising, at net rates above one hundred thousand per day.
The only thing which is in decline, is the rate at which the global population was increasing.
No. Population could carry on rising even as births fall as people live longer. Even total births could keep rising as the birth rate falls. The point is population is levelling off. It will not keep rising indefinitely as the Malthusians suggest.The only thing which is in decline, is the rate at which the global population was increasing.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Kermit power said:
Where is this vast economic surplus?
The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
What is the net worth of the same people? Average income? Productivity?The UK national debt at present is £2.35Tn. That's approximately £84k for each and every household. On top of that, you can add an average of around £62k in actual household debt. How does that pay for lots of healthcare and pensions whilst the ratio between productive and unproductive people carries on narrowing?
There are essentially no countries in the world who are not running any national debt, so we're not talking about moving sovereign debt around as part of a new world order, so who actually owns this massive prosperity, and how do you get it to where it needs to be?
The surplus is in many places. I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my 40s and can remember people talking about 2 car families. The television. The annual holiday. Pensioners who couldn't afford heating. A mobile phone being a clunky novelty for yuppies and show offs. Conputers and the internet being a specialist hobby for geeks. We are massively prosperous on many measures and getting more so. And all while paying for a wasteful state sector and badly organised pension system.
And while we have been doing this fewer people are starving, fewer people are living in abject poverty. Millions more have access to clean water, education, healthcare and other things that they didn't in my lifetime.
Yes the debt is huge but £84k + £62k is £146k. A modest mortgage which can be paid off in the same way.
I agree that it is absolutely scandalous that people born today will be paying for our profligacy one way or another for decades to come but it's a problem to be dealt with, not a pretext for genocide. As massive problems go it's preferable to fascism or nuclear communism.
AmgMercedes said:
It will happen naturally soon enough if there isn’t enough food to go round. Not in the U.K. of course but in poor countries with uncontrolled population. Nigeria isn’t looking good esp with no grain from Ukraine. Even Bob Geldof won’t be able to solve that one.
Just about every war in history has been fought over the acquisition of resources. In some cases resources as basic as drinking water.As the population grows, and resources dwindle, more conflicts will begin across the planet. at first they will be small scale / regional, but they could grow to take over the entire planet.
Lemmings at least have the decency, to throw themselves off a cliff when their populations have grown too fast, and too large for their environment to cope with, But we humans do things rather differently just because we can.
They say that anarchy, is just a few square meals away, but even in a so called civilized country, such as the UK we only have to look at what happens when a shortage of `any' kind is announced. Panic buying, disagreement (and then even fights) seem to be the order of the day.
ATG said:
And debt is not an indication of a lack of economic productive capacity. Particularly where we borrow to spend on stuff being produced right now, as opposed to buying houses or investment assets, increasing debt is an indication that the economy is capable of producing far more than people can currently afford to buy. Debt allows the system to clear; companies don't have to sit on their hands waiting for their customers to save up enough to buy. You get to buy now, benefit from the product now, the manufacturer gets paid now, and the value the product adds to you creates the wealth that will allow you to pay the debt off.
That's fine when you're an individual or a corporation run for profit. How is the huge cost of care for the elderly creating economic value? The amount of National debt which generates only increased debt is growing all the time. Pan Pan Pan said:
Just about every war in history has been fought over the acquisition of resources. In some cases resources as basic as drinking water.
As the population grows, and resources dwindle, more conflicts will begin across the planet. at first they will be small scale / regional, but they could grow to take over the entire planet.
Lemmings at least have the decency, to throw themselves off a cliff when their populations have grown too fast, and too large for their environment to cope with, But we humans do things rather differently just because we can.
They say that anarchy, is just a few square meals away, but even in a so called civilized country, such as the UK we only have to look at what happens when a shortage of `any' kind is announced. Panic buying, disagreement (and then even fights) seem to be the order of the day.
Yup wars are normally either greed or religion As the population grows, and resources dwindle, more conflicts will begin across the planet. at first they will be small scale / regional, but they could grow to take over the entire planet.
Lemmings at least have the decency, to throw themselves off a cliff when their populations have grown too fast, and too large for their environment to cope with, But we humans do things rather differently just because we can.
They say that anarchy, is just a few square meals away, but even in a so called civilized country, such as the UK we only have to look at what happens when a shortage of `any' kind is announced. Panic buying, disagreement (and then even fights) seem to be the order of the day.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Just about every war in history has been fought over the acquisition of resources. In some cases resources as basic as drinking water.
As the population grows, and resources dwindle, more conflicts will begin across the planet. at first they will be small scale / regional, but they could grow to take over the entire planet.
Lemmings at least have the decency, to throw themselves off a cliff when their populations have grown too fast, and too large for their environment to cope with, But we humans do things rather differently just because we can.
They say that anarchy, is just a few square meals away, but even in a so called civilized country, such as the UK we only have to look at what happens when a shortage of `any' kind is announced. Panic buying, disagreement (and then even fights) seem to be the order of the day.
Wrong. That's a myth primarily thanks to some fking evil Disney filmmakers.As the population grows, and resources dwindle, more conflicts will begin across the planet. at first they will be small scale / regional, but they could grow to take over the entire planet.
Lemmings at least have the decency, to throw themselves off a cliff when their populations have grown too fast, and too large for their environment to cope with, But we humans do things rather differently just because we can.
They say that anarchy, is just a few square meals away, but even in a so called civilized country, such as the UK we only have to look at what happens when a shortage of `any' kind is announced. Panic buying, disagreement (and then even fights) seem to be the order of the day.
https://www.britannica.com/story/do-lemmings-reall...
Biggy Stardust said:
V1nce Fox said:
We don’t have a resource problem, we have a fairness of distribution problem. See also finance.
V1nce Fox said:
Wealth inequality has risen at an astonishing rate in the last two years on top of an already worsening situation. Further centralisation of power is the trajectory we seem to be on.
When you give up the majority of your wealth & distribute it to those with nothing I will respect your position.Until then I will consider it to be hypocritical virtue signalling.
Before we talk about killing off sections of society It'd be nicer to first try to share things a bit more!
It can be argued that those billions in Musk's pocket (for example) could be put to better use when distributed amongst more people.
Jeanboi said:
Biggy Stardust said:
V1nce Fox said:
We don’t have a resource problem, we have a fairness of distribution problem. See also finance.
V1nce Fox said:
Wealth inequality has risen at an astonishing rate in the last two years on top of an already worsening situation. Further centralisation of power is the trajectory we seem to be on.
When you give up the majority of your wealth & distribute it to those with nothing I will respect your position.Until then I will consider it to be hypocritical virtue signalling.
Before we talk about killing off sections of society It'd be nicer to first try to share things a bit more!
It can be argued that those billions in Musk's pocket (for example) could be put to better use when distributed amongst more people.
When the subject of culling humanity or restricting medical treatments to people based on various criteria is raised the ones who support it never step forward to offer their own resignation from the human race do they. Funny that.
The 'useless hordes' as they see them, are everyone but themselves. Abhorrent people.
The 'useless hordes' as they see them, are everyone but themselves. Abhorrent people.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff