When will we start to cull humanity?

[Derek Smith]

Every prediction by the learned and informed has turned out to be wrong. Every damned one. I see no reason for the current predictions to be just as wide of the mark.

We have always been about to run out of oil 5-10 years, at least since the 50s. The population was always going to run out of control in a bit longer period of time. The populations of Japan was going to reach 200m in a few years and 300m a few years later. Every one of the predictors has been spot on given the information available at the time. Automation would render 70% of the population unemployed.

I was born into a world where the clock was ticking on the nuclear war that would wipe us all out. Sense prevailed, albeit precariously, but enough.

The cull as such has already started. Birth rates are dropping all over the world and the latest fear is that people will get older. I'm 75. I still work. The amount I do has dropped by 3/4 since covid, but I still tick along. My brother didn't stop work until he was 74, and then only because of domestic reasons.

It seems some of the young ones are a bit miffed they might have to pay for us old 'uns. They should remember that the young ones in 1914 and 1939 paid a great deal more and the current mob are living on their sacrifice.

No one, and certainly not the OP by all evidence, knows what the next 10-15 years will bring. lap it up; that's life. To worry about it is to stop enjoying yourself. I've had dreadful worries over the years, and not one, that's zero, has happened in the way that concerned me, and not because of anything brilliant I, or others, did to stop it.

Kids have never had it so good. Overall. I bet the OP wouldn't swop for my life at the age of 25. Not with the nuclear war coming. And what the OP fears will not happen. It never does. Mind you, I've found that something does, but it's always something unexpected.

Have fun. This is your only chance of doing so.

[roger.mellie]

Derek Smith said:

Every prediction by the learned and informed has turned out to be wrong. Every damned one. I see no reason for the current predictions to be just as wide of the mark.

We have always been about to run out of oil 5-10 years, at least since the 50s. The population was always going to run out of control in a bit longer period of time. The populations of Japan was going to reach 200m in a few years and 300m a few years later. Every one of the predictors has been spot on given the information available at the time. Automation would render 70% of the population unemployed.

I was born into a world where the clock was ticking on the nuclear war that would wipe us all out. Sense prevailed, albeit precariously, but enough.

The cull as such has already started. Birth rates are dropping all over the world and the latest fear is that people will get older. I'm 75. I still work. The amount I do has dropped by 3/4 since covid, but I still tick along. My brother didn't stop work until he was 74, and then only because of domestic reasons.

It seems some of the young ones are a bit miffed they might have to pay for us old 'uns. They should remember that the young ones in 1914 and 1939 paid a great deal more and the current mob are living on their sacrifice.

No one, and certainly not the OP by all evidence, knows what the next 10-15 years will bring. lap it up; that's life. To worry about it is to stop enjoying yourself. I've had dreadful worries over the years, and not one, that's zero, has happened in the way that concerned me, and not because of anything brilliant I, or others, did to stop it.

Kids have never had it so good. Overall. I bet the OP wouldn't swop for my life at the age of 25. Not with the nuclear war coming. And what the OP fears will not happen. It never does. Mind you, I've found that something does, but it's always something unexpected.

Have fun. This is your only chance of doing so.

I’m younger but entirely agree with that sentiment. We have a piss poor track record of predicting the future of the human race at the national level never mind the global level.

There’s a tangent I wouldn’t want to go too far on in terms of do what you like and life and technology/science will look after it being a valid approach. Obviously that is wrong. I know that’s not what you’re saying, but it did register in my head that one interpretation could be don’t worry it’ll sort itself rather than take some responsibility. Some things are obviously not long term sustainable. But we’re a damn sight away away from having to render the fatties for fuel yet .

[Ridgemont]

roger.mellie said:

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.

Indeed. Tonight’s an odd ‘un. I couldn’t agree more.
Batst crazy propositions which ignores society’s ability to self correct (whether by technology/science, rights etc).

Though to push the divisive left v right narrative so that temporary allies return to their respective bunkers I might argue (if I wanted to st stir) that only in the most demented minds of the left would this be even argued. I mean the demented right if left to their own devices would presumably have more ‘impactful’ eugenic solutions but the OP proposition is troll posting of the highest Logan’s Run order; government should control a lifespan.

A long life is a good thing. It can be handled badly or well but just by dint of it presenting challenges does not mean that the solution is to remove the source of the challenge. I may as well start exterminating those that fail to get a decent education because they may present a future drain on the state

[johnboy1975]

mike9009 said:

Longevity of humans has been increasing for hundreds of years.

The real issue facing Western nations is the declining birth rate, not the longevity. Japan and Italy are two nations currently facing this paradox. There was a report somewhere stating that come 2040 (or somewhere round there??) the global population will start declining as more developing nations become developed with lowered birth rates. The birth rates in many African nations is already declining but not to the point of population decrease.

This will bring interesting times, not only in care for the elderly. The whole capitalist economy is predicated on population growth. Gawd knows what will happen. I imagine mass migration will occur to Western 'richer' nations to support the elderly and the capitalist economies.... But who knows, humans are pretty adaptive to changing circumstances, but political and economic decisions in the near future will be interesting......

1st bold

Isn't it both? Either one would cause issues, both together is a perfect storm.

I've said it before, cracking pension at 50 and a bullet in the head at 65 would be much preferable to me than limping on to claim my pension at 68 and spending 20 odd years in Ill health of one sort or another. I don't fear dying. I do fear growing old. (I'm 46)

[not a credible solution, obvs]

2nd bold.

Agreed. May you be cursed to live in interesting times.....

[roger.mellie]

johnboy1975 said:

1st bold

Isn't it both? Either one would cause issues, both together is a perfect storm.

I've said it before, cracking pension at 50 and a bullet in the head at 65 would be much preferable to me than limping on to claim my pension at 68 and spending 20 odd years in Ill health of one sort or another. I don't fear dying. I do fear growing old. (I'm 46)

[not a credible solution, obvs]

2nd bold.

Agreed. May you be cursed to live in interesting times.....

Odds are the government would gradually raise the pension age from 50 to 65 without moving the bullet in the head age .

[Ridgemont]

roger.mellie said:

johnboy1975 said:

1st bold

Isn't it both? Either one would cause issues, both together is a perfect storm.

I've said it before, cracking pension at 50 and a bullet in the head at 65 would be much preferable to me than limping on to claim my pension at 68 and spending 20 odd years in Ill health of one sort or another. I don't fear dying. I do fear growing old. (I'm 46)

[not a credible solution, obvs]

2nd bold.

Agreed. May you be cursed to live in interesting times.....

Odds are the government would gradually raise the pension age from 50 to 65 without moving the bullet in the head age .

It never ceases to amaze me that a relatively random age (65) which Oto Von Bismarck settled on largely because of the fact that the age of mortality for males was around 3 years beyond that (68) has now been set in stone ad infinitum. 140 odd years ago.

[roger.mellie]

Ridgemont said:

It never ceases to amaze me that a relatively random age (65) which Oto Von Bismarck settled on largely because of the fact that the age of mortality for males was around 3 years beyond that (68) has now been set in stone ad infinitum. 140 odd years ago.

Thanks for the rabbit hole and a new word in my lexicon - gerontologists. I didn’t know the Otto side of the story.

Agreed arbitrary ages are just a number, but as a society we can currently easily afford to cover our elderly not having to work until they’re dead. I take issues with the notion that value is based on employment anyway, other than I could use it as a good excuse to cull a few upper echelons .

[Ridgemont]

roger.mellie said:

Ridgemont said:

It never ceases to amaze me that a relatively random age (65) which Oto Von Bismarck settled on largely because of the fact that the age of mortality for males was around 3 years beyond that (68) has now been set in stone ad infinitum. 140 odd years ago.

Thanks for the rabbit hole and a new word in my lexicon - gerontologists. I didn’t know the Otto side of the story.

Agreed arbitrary ages are just a number, but as a society we can currently easily afford to cover our elderly not having to work until they’re dead. I take issues with the notion that value is based on employment anyway, other than I could use it as a good excuse to cull a few upper echelons .

Can we? For how long? (both in terms of a person now living till say on average mid eighties or for that matter the long term solvency of our economic systems?). Arguably we have pensioners drawing ever larger sums from the treasury, sitting on bigger unproductive capital accumulations and with a narrowing tax contributor pool. It’s an insane situation given the system is based on principles from the end of the nineteenth century.
There isn’t a magic bullet but governments really ought to be addressing the pensionable age (leave retirement to individuals if they can afford it) to hike it as high as possible.

[Ridgemont]

And for the avoidance of doubt: I am due to tick 50 in 4 months time. I have no doubt I will be working into my mid seventies as my pension accumulation is too small and my Mortgage has decades to run. But that surely should be the standard for most people? We are no longer near invalids by 70. Why do we assume decades of state provided support?

Edited by Ridgemont on Sunday 26th June 07:32

[roger.mellie]

Ridgemont said:

roger.mellie said:

Ridgemont said:

It never ceases to amaze me that a relatively random age (65) which Oto Von Bismarck settled on largely because of the fact that the age of mortality for males was around 3 years beyond that (68) has now been set in stone ad infinitum. 140 odd years ago.

Thanks for the rabbit hole and a new word in my lexicon - gerontologists. I didn’t know the Otto side of the story.

Agreed arbitrary ages are just a number, but as a society we can currently easily afford to cover our elderly not having to work until they’re dead. I take issues with the notion that value is based on employment anyway, other than I could use it as a good excuse to cull a few upper echelons .

Can we? For how long? (both in terms of a person now living till say on average mid eighties or for that matter the long term solvency of our economic systems?). Arguably we have pensioners drawing ever larger sums from the treasury, sitting on bigger unproductive capital accumulations and with a narrowing tax contributor pool. It’s an insane situation given the system is based on principles from the end of the nineteenth century.
There isn’t a magic bullet but governments really ought to be addressing the pensionable age (leave retirement to individuals if they can afford it) to hike it as high as possible.

Yes we can.

There’s a definite argument for bleeding some wealth out of those who got rich via property. It’s makey up numbers anyway.

I’m not that old but I’m old enough to believe in a social contract. Work hard and expect a decent standard of health care, education for your children, and support for your elderly and yourself in retirement. If a rich government can’t support that then they’ve failed as a concept never mind as an actual government. Even the Soviet Union managed that to an extent. No question on that in my view. If they try to blame it on unaffordability whilst talking about tax cuts or austerity I’ll think fkwits. The fact is it is affordable, they just don’t want to admit that some who falsely believe they’re self made will have to dig a little deeper. I’m not a socialist BTW but I do get sick to the eye teeth of people who automatically assume that the problem is with individuals rather than how the government is running the show. Look over the fence, many countries do a better job than the UK whilst not being so rich. Why is that?

All being well I could quite easily work into my 70’s but I’m a desk jockey. There are jobs where that’s not a realistic proposition. But if you really think people should, tell them when they’re sixteen and not thirty years later, I joke but not entirely.

[ATG]

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.

Yes. Really.

You say you've read up on population statistics. You should keep reading. Birth rates have plateaued pretty much everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa. As a result one would expect the total population to peak not much higher than its current level and then start to decline.

It's also worth noting that the parts of the global population that are still growing are also those who consume the least resources.

Broadly speaking, as you become more affluent and therefore tend to consume more resources, you also choose to have far fewer children.

The only reason to squeal about total population is if you want to be able to personally consume more than the planet can currently sustain for the average person. I.e. you don't want to change your behaviour and you think everyone else should do so instead ... by topping themselves, by being forced not to have children even though on average they're choosing not to anyway, by not giving themselves healthcare. That's pretty feeble.

Broadly the changes we all need to adopt are to switch to less polluting energy sources and to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture. The former encourages us to electrify stuff which in almost every case happens to be a better engineering solution anyway. And the agricultural changes also encourage us towards healthier diets.

And along with all the other Malthusian types of anxiety, the "what jobs will be left for humans in the future?" question always crops up. If we do succeed in automating more manufacturing, and we automate road transport, etc., etc., perhaps the are where petite will really be able to add value is in the care industries. People looking after people. If we valued that activity a bit more and did rather more of it, we'd probably be a happy, healthier society with less stark generational divides.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Randy Winkman said:

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.

Quite possibly, but the problem is that some believe we have `already' damaged the planet, and its climate with `just' the population we have now, so how adding billions more, (in what is for the planet) a very short time frame is going to make things better, is a mystery.
We are already extracting more, not less resources from the Earth, to meet the demands of the colossal and still growing global population.
The Earth is often referred to as being the lifeboat of humanity, But if that humanity decides it wants to swamp the lifeboat, and use up all its resources as quickly as it can (Just because it can) long before the lifeboat reaches a point of safety, then `no' humans will survive.
This however might be a good thing for `any' other species that are still left, that we were `supposed' to be sharing the Earth with.

[roger.mellie]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Quite possibly, but the problem is that some believe we have `already' damaged the planet, and its climate with `just' the population we have now, so how adding billions more, (in what is for the planet) a very short time frame is going to make things better, is a mystery.
We are already extracting more, not less resources from the Earth, to meet the demands of the colossal and still growing global population.
The Earth is often referred to as being the lifeboat of humanity, But if that humanity decides it wants to swamp the lifeboat, and use up all its resources as quickly as it can (Just because it can) long before the lifeboat reaches a point of safety, then `no' humans will survive.
This however might be a good thing for `any' other species that are still left, that we were `supposed' to be sharing the Earth with.

Interesting use of quotation marks.

What’s your “final solution”?

[Dr Jekyll]

From what point of view is the planet 'damaged'? Is this a case of 'I'm not asking for what I want, it's what the planet wants, and I just happen to have inside knowledge of what it wants'.

More people also means finding more resources, finding ways of making better use of resources, making things that were previously useless or unattainable into resources.

[Eric Mc]

Kermit 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?

Why not volunteer to be the first?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Eric Mc said:

Kermit 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?

Why not volunteer to be the first?

Why dont people elect `themselves' to first, by smashing their wedding tackle between two house bricks, or glueing their knees together?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dr Jekyll said:

From what point of view is the planet 'damaged'? Is this a case of 'I'm not asking for what I want, it's what the planet wants, and I just happen to have inside knowledge of what it wants'.

More people also means finding more resources, finding ways of making better use of resources, making things that were previously useless or unattainable into resources.

Please, please, dont tell me the planet is doomed, because of man made climate change. the hypocrisy would be too much to bear.
The naïve duplicity of those, who on the one hand, keep telling us we are doomed, owing to MMGW, whilst on the other, saying that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste and emissions producing humans to the planet but that somehow, this has not, and will not have any consequences, is just too much.

[Pan Pan Pan]

roger.mellie said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Quite possibly, but the problem is that some believe we have `already' damaged the planet, and its climate with `just' the population we have now, so how adding billions more, (in what is for the planet) a very short time frame is going to make things better, is a mystery.
We are already extracting more, not less resources from the Earth, to meet the demands of the colossal and still growing global population.
The Earth is often referred to as being the lifeboat of humanity, But if that humanity decides it wants to swamp the lifeboat, and use up all its resources as quickly as it can (Just because it can) long before the lifeboat reaches a point of safety, then `no' humans will survive.
This however might be a good thing for `any' other species that are still left, that we were `supposed' to be sharing the Earth with.

Interesting use of quotation marks.

What’s your “final solution”?

How about Soylent Green for a start, that at least might hold things for a few years longer, But it wont be the final solution? That is for `nature' to ultimately decide.

[mondeoman]

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.

Yawn

[Randy Winkman]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Dr Jekyll said:

From what point of view is the planet 'damaged'? Is this a case of 'I'm not asking for what I want, it's what the planet wants, and I just happen to have inside knowledge of what it wants'.

More people also means finding more resources, finding ways of making better use of resources, making things that were previously useless or unattainable into resources.

Please, please, dont tell me the planet is doomed, because of man made climate change. the hypocrisy would be too much to bear.
The naïve duplicity of those, who on the one hand, keep telling us we are doomed, owing to MMGW, whilst on the other, saying that we can carry on adding billions more resource consuming, waste and emissions producing humans to the planet but that somehow, this has not, and will not have any consequences, is just too much.

Who actually are these people you are talking about?