When will we start to cull humanity?
Discussion
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.
Not a new idea. Malthus was a while ago. This guidance is from 1979. 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nobody-k...
In reality things are better than most people assume. Across the world, families are having two kids that live rather than twenty that mostly die. Worth a read -
Though on the way down we are going to have huge populations of geriatric old folk. I would not be surprised if we changed our medical approach to old age.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nobody-k...
In reality things are better than most people assume. Across the world, families are having two kids that live rather than twenty that mostly die. Worth a read -
Though on the way down we are going to have huge populations of geriatric old folk. I would not be surprised if we changed our medical approach to old age.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
Randy Winkman 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.
tannhauser said:
Yes it is. The world can’t sustain it.
As I said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08EKermit power said:
It is often said (perfectly correctly) that the effort we expend to protect the weak and injured in society is on of the key traits that differents humanity from other species, but how long can it be sustained?
In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
Sounds like you’ve been watching Avengers: Infinity War a wee bit too intently. In 1950, there were six working people per retired person in this country. By 2000, that had fallen to four, and today it is closer to three. That is not sustainable.
The annual future liabilities of the NHS to compensate for the consequences of negligence in childbirth outweigh the wages of the doctors, nurses and midwives the NHS employs to deliver babies. Again, not sustainable.
Many people voted for Brexit because they wanted to stop the constant march of immigration, yet a reproduction rate of 1.6 per mother and an ageing population make this immigration inevitable.
In short, the urge of humanity to protect and prolong the lives of our sick, injured and elderly as much as possible is ultimately on a direct collision course with the survival of humanity as a whole.
Whether we start actively choosing to withhold treatment from the sickest and oldest to conserve resources, we deliberately cease to research cures for currently terminal illnesses or we merely leave it to market forces to determine who lives and dies, the fact that it will eventually happen is surely inevitable. The only question seems to be how long it will take before it begins?
You’ll be telling us you’ve booked an appointment at the glover next.
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.
only on PH.Edited by crankedup5 on Saturday 25th June 18:54
Not a single human being, out of all the countless billions of human being who have ever been on Earth, asked to be born. Not a single one.
Once a person (who had no say in the matter) has arrived on the planet, they have every right to live their lives out, as best, and for as long as they possibly can.
If the global population is to be stabilized, the only humane way, is to apply `some' form of birth control.
If we cannot do this, nature will come up with a way of stabilizing our numbers, the only problem, being, that nature by its very nature, means that the solution `it' comes up with wont necessarily be humane. With perhaps the ongoing problem that we might also have trashed the planet anyway by then.
Once a person (who had no say in the matter) has arrived on the planet, they have every right to live their lives out, as best, and for as long as they possibly can.
If the global population is to be stabilized, the only humane way, is to apply `some' form of birth control.
If we cannot do this, nature will come up with a way of stabilizing our numbers, the only problem, being, that nature by its very nature, means that the solution `it' comes up with wont necessarily be humane. With perhaps the ongoing problem that we might also have trashed the planet anyway by then.
tannhauser said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m not joining in.
People are wonderful. The earth can sustain multiples of the current population with decent quality of life, and room for nature…
Not easy, but doable.
Head in the sand.People are wonderful. The earth can sustain multiples of the current population with decent quality of life, and room for nature…
Not easy, but doable.
We have such a giant surplus of farmland we use vast swathes of it to grow ingredients for luxury goods.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Not a single human being, out of all the countless billions of human being who have ever been on Earth, asked to be born. Not a single one.
Once a person (who had no say in the matter) has arrived on the planet, they have every right to live their lives out, as best, and for as long as they possibly can.
If the global population is to be stabilized, the only humane way, is to apply `some' form of birth control.
If we cannot do this, nature will come up with a way of stabilizing our numbers, the only problem, being, that nature by its very nature, means that the solution `it' comes up with wont necessarily be humane. With perhaps the ongoing problem that we might also have trashed the planet anyway by then.
It is predicted that it will stabilize itself anyway because the birth rate has been declining year by year for decades. It's about half what it was in 1950.Once a person (who had no say in the matter) has arrived on the planet, they have every right to live their lives out, as best, and for as long as they possibly can.
If the global population is to be stabilized, the only humane way, is to apply `some' form of birth control.
If we cannot do this, nature will come up with a way of stabilizing our numbers, the only problem, being, that nature by its very nature, means that the solution `it' comes up with wont necessarily be humane. With perhaps the ongoing problem that we might also have trashed the planet anyway by then.
Randy Winkman said:
It is predicted that it will stabilize itself anyway because the birth rate has been declining year by year for decades. It's about half what it was in 1950.
I can’t imagine there are many threads where I overlap in agreement with PPP, Cranked and Biggy 
. Obviously I’m agreeing with others too but I can’t imagine Kermit’s going to get much agreement with the view that selective processing is a solution to population management whether deliberate or via the consequences of other decisions that allow some leeway for it not being deliberate policy.I’m not sure what PPP was thinking when referring to “control” but education, women’s rights, and proper access to contraceptives etc is one of the best birth control measures there is. He’s dead (poor choice of word maybe) right that nobody living has more right to life than anyone else. I realise there’s a whole can of worms to be opened there in observed reality vs principles.
Lol, just realised I’m even agreeing with Jenny.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff