When will we start to cull humanity?

[roger.mellie]

Randy Winkman said:

Why not? Do you think that "healthy" people somehow live a large part of their lives "unhealthy"? In my experience people with unhealthy lifestyles start to go downhill at the point healthy people are looking forward to retirement and "relative" freedom.

I'm very much looking forward to relative freedom. If I can outlive every one of my relations I'll be free.

I'm a bit of a health nut but it's not a requirement or even a guarantee of good health in older age. It's certainly not a qualifier of worth.

[F1GTRUeno]

heebeegeetee said:

Hmm. Don't see the point in going healthy.

One less mouth to feed, one less person using up finite resources (and the infinite ones too although if they're infinite it doesn't matter), one less house to fill, one less everything in a world where we need as much as we can get for everyone?

if you've lived your life and you're just ticking by, why not just go? Be absolutely grateful that you got to the age you did whilst healthy, be grateful that it doesn't have to last forever, the beauty of life is that it's fleeting in the grand scheme of things.

If you put a cap on for everyone it eliminates the worth argument too because we're all worth equally as much.

Edited by F1GTRUeno on Sunday 26th June 20:33

[heebeegeetee]

F1GTRUeno said:

1. One less mouth to feed, one less person using up finite resources (and the infinite ones too although if they're infinite it doesn't matter), one less house to fill, one less everything in a world where we need as much as we can get for everyone?

2. if you've lived your life and you're just ticking by, why not just go?

3. Be absolutely grateful that you got to the age you did whilst healthy, be grateful that it doesn't have to last forever, the beauty of life is that it's fleeting in the grand scheme of things.

1. One less for who to feed? If he's healthy, he's feeding himself as much as the next man.

2. Who says who is "just ticking over"?

3. Be grateful to who? What's it got to do with anyone else?

[Terminator X]

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.

You do understand though that 8bn people consuming finite resources is "worse" than 4bn or 1bn?

TX.

[Kawasicki]

Terminator X 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.

You do understand though that 8bn people consuming finite resources is "worse" than 4bn or 1bn?

TX.

But 8bn people is only a small fraction of 80bn.

When the finite resources are all used up, we‘ll use something else.

10-100,000 trillion ants are alive on our planet. Wrecking the place.

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 27th June 08:39

[steveatesh]

Oh good, can we start with the doom and gloom merchants please?

Although I do realise there would be lots of vacancies on the MSM very quickly…….

[Kermit power]

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.

Yawn

And in one word, we have a perfect demonstration of the problem.



The world's total population was estimated at 190 million people in the year 0.

From there, it took over 1,800 years to reach the first billion.

The second billion? Around 125 years.

The third? 40 years. Then 15 years for the 4th, 18 for the 5th, and 12 each for the 6th and 7th.

And yet, the sum total of your contribution to the debate is "yawn".

[BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo]

Looks like modern lifestyles will sort that out


https://youtu.be/5jQsaKJf3ic


Explains the proliferation of man buns, shoes without socks, trousers that are too short, male grooming etc

[JuanCarlosFandango]

F1GTRUeno said:

I suggested to my mum that a position of capping life at 80 might be a start. I remember a Futurama episode with Dr. Farnsworth trying to dodge the robots that come and take you at 80 so it probably played into my mind thinking about the age.

I was basing the idea on the fact that we'd lost my grandad (her father) in a completely undifgnified manner at 82 and my nan (who'd facilitated it to a degree, the witch) was 83 and basically a shell of a human being confined to a chair waiting to die. A little bit of me got some satisfaction knowing she was in the position she put my grandad in but that quickly subsided when I saw what it was like and that it just went on and on and on until she died this year at 87.

I was branded a monster but the reality of it was I didn't want my grandparents dying in such a manner whereby they had no quality of life and no dignity and we were keeping them alive for what exactly? It was cruel to see them, even my nan who I hated, as they were.

My grandad on my dad's side lived to 90 but he spent the last few years alone apart from the time we spent with him when we could and he was quite content to go off into the sunset having outlived the two women he loved and now alone which caused no end of grief with my dad who didn't want to lose him for his own selfish reasons (my nan having passed away when I was a lot younger). Again, despite the sheer love I had of going round to see him and spend hours chatting to him about anything and everything, I thought it cruel that he couldn't just take some chocolate and slip off quietly in his sleep (I presume it's still the same at Dignitas?) if he wanted to. Nor could we do anything to facilitate that when he declared at times that he wanted to go.

I figure if you put a cap on life, we all get a 'relatively' fair shake at it. Health and environment factors will dictate that some don't get anywhere near that cap but that's as unfair in that scenario as it is right now so you can take those people out of it. We all agree as a species that we're gonna do this (when was the last time humans agreed on anything however I know) and we make a deal to help each other out (again, when was the last time we did that).

Instead, at least in my head, you incentivise people to make the most of the time they've got, more so than the lottery of life as it is now. Put a cap on things and telll everyone they've got until 'x' to live as much of a life as they can and get everything out of it so that when that time comes, they can leave knowing they've accomplished what they could and experienced what they could. I'm terrified of death, it's the reason I suspect that I'm still here despite multiple suicide attempts, and I'd much rather have a peaceful coexistence and relationship with it instead of never knowing what'll happen. Again, I've wasted years of my life (my 20's were an absolute stshow) with depression and I'm trying now to live as much as I can to catch up on what I missed so I can have some peace when I do go. I figure that relationship with death is something that needs addressing, especially when we get things like mothers and fathers not respecting doctors opinions and holding on when there's no hope left. Nobody wants to say it but we all know they're being selfish even if we completely understand why they're doing it.

And all this is long before you look into the practicalities of resource management, distribution and consumption of those resources. We're heavily over-populated and we'll be screwed in a short while if we don't address it.

I don't have a problem with old people, retired people, whatever. They've lived their lives and experienced lots that us younger folk (feels weird to still be saying that at 32) can learn from but surely at some point it's just easier and better to go? Healthy or not.

Contradictory anecdotes: my aunt who was basically immobile from her late 50s, in and out of hospital and finally died aged 77 having spent 2 decades consuming healthcare with little quality of life. Then my father who turns 80 this year and while not exactly spritely is mobile and active and hopefully will be for a few years to come.

I think there's a legitimate question about quality of life versus quantity of life that we haven't really addressed in step with the amazing advances in medicine in recent years, but the idea of arbitrary caps and limits will never work for fundamentally individual problems.

[Terminator X]

Kawasicki said:

Terminator X 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.

You do understand though that 8bn people consuming finite resources is "worse" than 4bn or 1bn?

TX.

But 8bn people is only a small fraction of 80bn.

When the finite resources are all used up, we‘ll use something else.

10-100,000 trillion ants are alive on our planet. Wrecking the place.

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 27th June 08:39

Lol how much oil are the ants using? How many car sized batteries have they made? Have they started up any battery farms because otherwise they would not have enough food to feed them all?

TX.

[Kawasicki]

Terminator X said:

Kawasicki said:

Terminator X 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.

You do understand though that 8bn people consuming finite resources is "worse" than 4bn or 1bn?

TX.

But 8bn people is only a small fraction of 80bn.

When the finite resources are all used up, we‘ll use something else.

10-100,000 trillion ants are alive on our planet. Wrecking the place.

Edited by Kawasicki on Monday 27th June 08:39

Lol how much oil are the ants using? How many car sized batteries have they made? Have they started up any battery farms because otherwise they would not have enough food to feed them all?

TX.

Ants can utterly destroy a tree in short order. Ants release gigantic quantities of greenhouse gases. They are very unforgiving of other species entering their territory. They build giant landfill dumps.

They don’t have enough food. If they did they would be even more numerous. They consume and reproduce… and to hell with the consequences.

Like most living organisms, really… it’s only humans that really concern themselves with consequences.

[Kermit power]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

F1GTRUeno said:

I suggested to my mum that a position of capping life at 80 might be a start. I remember a Futurama episode with Dr. Farnsworth trying to dodge the robots that come and take you at 80 so it probably played into my mind thinking about the age.

I was basing the idea on the fact that we'd lost my grandad (her father) in a completely undifgnified manner at 82 and my nan (who'd facilitated it to a degree, the witch) was 83 and basically a shell of a human being confined to a chair waiting to die. A little bit of me got some satisfaction knowing she was in the position she put my grandad in but that quickly subsided when I saw what it was like and that it just went on and on and on until she died this year at 87.

I was branded a monster but the reality of it was I didn't want my grandparents dying in such a manner whereby they had no quality of life and no dignity and we were keeping them alive for what exactly? It was cruel to see them, even my nan who I hated, as they were.

My grandad on my dad's side lived to 90 but he spent the last few years alone apart from the time we spent with him when we could and he was quite content to go off into the sunset having outlived the two women he loved and now alone which caused no end of grief with my dad who didn't want to lose him for his own selfish reasons (my nan having passed away when I was a lot younger). Again, despite the sheer love I had of going round to see him and spend hours chatting to him about anything and everything, I thought it cruel that he couldn't just take some chocolate and slip off quietly in his sleep (I presume it's still the same at Dignitas?) if he wanted to. Nor could we do anything to facilitate that when he declared at times that he wanted to go.

I figure if you put a cap on life, we all get a 'relatively' fair shake at it. Health and environment factors will dictate that some don't get anywhere near that cap but that's as unfair in that scenario as it is right now so you can take those people out of it. We all agree as a species that we're gonna do this (when was the last time humans agreed on anything however I know) and we make a deal to help each other out (again, when was the last time we did that).

Instead, at least in my head, you incentivise people to make the most of the time they've got, more so than the lottery of life as it is now. Put a cap on things and telll everyone they've got until 'x' to live as much of a life as they can and get everything out of it so that when that time comes, they can leave knowing they've accomplished what they could and experienced what they could. I'm terrified of death, it's the reason I suspect that I'm still here despite multiple suicide attempts, and I'd much rather have a peaceful coexistence and relationship with it instead of never knowing what'll happen. Again, I've wasted years of my life (my 20's were an absolute stshow) with depression and I'm trying now to live as much as I can to catch up on what I missed so I can have some peace when I do go. I figure that relationship with death is something that needs addressing, especially when we get things like mothers and fathers not respecting doctors opinions and holding on when there's no hope left. Nobody wants to say it but we all know they're being selfish even if we completely understand why they're doing it.

And all this is long before you look into the practicalities of resource management, distribution and consumption of those resources. We're heavily over-populated and we'll be screwed in a short while if we don't address it.

I don't have a problem with old people, retired people, whatever. They've lived their lives and experienced lots that us younger folk (feels weird to still be saying that at 32) can learn from but surely at some point it's just easier and better to go? Healthy or not.

Contradictory anecdotes: my aunt who was basically immobile from her late 50s, in and out of hospital and finally died aged 77 having spent 2 decades consuming healthcare with little quality of life. Then my father who turns 80 this year and while not exactly spritely is mobile and active and hopefully will be for a few years to come.

I think there's a legitimate question about quality of life versus quantity of life that we haven't really addressed in step with the amazing advances in medicine in recent years, but the idea of arbitrary caps and limits will never work for fundamentally individual problems.

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.

[Monkeylegend]

People will be too busy trying to decide on their gender to procreate so I wouldn't worry too much.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

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.

As for resources, the price mechanism will sort this out long before we reach any absolute limit for most commodities.

[crankedup5]

Kermit power 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.

Yawn

And in one word, we have a perfect demonstration of the problem.



The world's total population was estimated at 190 million people in the year 0.

From there, it took over 1,800 years to reach the first billion.

The second billion? Around 125 years.

The third? 40 years. Then 15 years for the 4th, 18 for the 5th, and 12 each for the 6th and 7th.

And yet, the sum total of your contribution to the debate is "yawn".

:yawn: Like some bloke shouting at the clouds ‘we are all doomed’ , which in fairness to you is very likely true. Meanwhile life goes on.

[Murph7355]

BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:

Looks like modern lifestyles will sort that out


https://youtu.be/5jQsaKJf3ic


Explains the proliferation of man buns, shoes without socks, trousers that are too short, male grooming etc

Nature wins.

Covid. Making us argumentative as a species so we like a good war, giving us "intelligence" so we create better ways of killing each other (direct and indirect) and electing idiots to lead us who then put policies in place that mean we grow weaker. Etc etc.

We are a parasitic species. Nature just fks about with us from time to time.

[Kermit power]

crankedup5 said:

:yawn: Like some bloke shouting at the clouds ‘we are all doomed’ , which in fairness to you is very likely true. Meanwhile life goes on.

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.

[Kermit power]

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.

As for resources, the price mechanism will sort this out long before we reach any absolute limit for most commodities.

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.

[Murph7355]

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....?

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.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

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.

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.