Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Splitting this off from another thread which was getting OT.

The central supposition is that if all humanity were reduced to 10% of it's current population (evenly) that this would be a good thing for the long term survival of humankind. There are some who disagree with this statement, and we'll let them explain their positions. Brace yourself for doomsday and end of the world scenarios.

So why do you think it would be good?

(not that i have formed an opinion about the subject yet)

How would the complete collapse of our economy and infrastructure be a good thing?

Are you volunteering yourself and all your friends and family to be part of the cull?

Eh, the world will be fine it's only us people that will suffer if anything goes bad.

Honestly I am fine with us suffering in the world we create rather than kill off 90% of people (that will likely do very little in grand scheme of things). If we all suffocate in 500 years then so be it. If we starve because too much food is grown that cannot be consumed then so be it. Let everyone live in the world they created until we die. That is how things go for any creature that destroys it's own habitat.

However if you really want 90% of people killed I think the person making the decision must also sacrifice himself and anyone doing the killing must accept that fate as well.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How would the complete collapse of our economy and infrastructure be a good thing?

Are you volunteering yourself and all your friends and family to be part of the cull?

Well its only a good thing if you know how to completely survive sustainably.

The fun part will probably happen when people that dont know how to survive try to group up together.

Edit: Also every unattended oil carrier floating about and nuclear power plants.

Edit2: Actually it entirely depends on the circumstances of the removal. sudden death would be pretty chaotic. but if it was a planet wide exodice where its all planned and those staying knew about it and prepared, then they probably would probably have a decent chance at surviving, assuming they all know how to do basic survival things like farming and things.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you volunteering yourself and all your friends and family to be part of the cull?

Yup. and all yours too.


the supposition is that everyone gets a flat 1 in 10 worldwide.

As far as a collapse, yes, the financial markets would be screwed. And, since infrastructure has been an interesting part of the debate, yes, a large portion of it would no longer be needed, and would thus no longer be maintained.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

Edit: Also every unattended oil carrier floating about and nuclear power plants.

Edit2: Actually it entirely depends on the circumstances of the removal. sudden death would be pretty chaotic. but if it was a planet wide exodice where its all planned and those staying knew about it and prepared, then they probably would probably have a decent chance at surviving, assuming they all know how to do basic survival things like farming and things.

Yeah, the idea was that suddenly, 90% of humanity is gone. Poof.

Oil carriers would be a problem, but most nukes would default to their fail-safes. At least, in the west. I have no idea if Russian reactors shut down automatically if no one is at the helm.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you volunteering yourself and all your friends and family to be part of the cull?

Yup. and all yours too.


the supposition is that everyone gets a flat 1 in 10 worldwide.

As far as a collapse, yes, the financial markets would be screwed. And, since infrastructure has been an interesting part of the debate, yes, a large portion of it would no longer be needed, and would thus no longer be maintained.

Would the 10% be spread out all over the world or all together from the start in a reasonable location?

Yeah, the idea was that suddenly, 90% of humanity is gone. Poof.

Oil carriers would be a problem, but most nukes would default to their fail-safes. At least, in the west. I have no idea if Russian reactors shut down automatically if no one is at the helm.

Then im assuming 10% split around the world.

First few years should be fine as there will be plenty of food and what not.

Guns wont be an issue as there should be a wide availability all over the place for hunting and defending.

i expect small war mongering tribes since this is starting from chaos. since no one knows wtf is going on. they will defend what they have rather than be open depending on what personally takes over any groups first.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you volunteering yourself and all your friends and family to be part of the cull?

Yup. and all yours too.


the supposition is that everyone gets a flat 1 in 10 worldwide.

As far as a collapse, yes, the financial markets would be screwed. And, since infrastructure has been an interesting part of the debate, yes, a large portion of it would no longer be needed, and would thus no longer be maintained.

You know what? If you say this is a good thing, you are pretty much evil. Volunteering someone else's family to die? I hope your friends and coworkers in real life find out exactly the kind of person you are.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

You know what? If you say this is a good thing, you are pretty much evil. Volunteering someone else's family to die? I hope your friends and coworkers in real life find out exactly the kind of person you are.

They already know. I do, after all, spend all day working in a government facility built to deal with exactly this sort of thing happening, in real life. So, yes, the end of the world in it's many permutations is a common subject around the water cooler and dinner table. Good and evil do not come into it. Just 'does this leave us better or worse off overall'?

I even get paid to think about it, and try to come up with ways to save your government paperwork (not you) from it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you volunteering yourself and all your friends and family to be part of the cull?

Yup. and all yours too.


the supposition is that everyone gets a flat 1 in 10 worldwide.

As far as a collapse, yes, the financial markets would be screwed. And, since infrastructure has been an interesting part of the debate, yes, a large portion of it would no longer be needed, and would thus no longer be maintained.

You know what? If you say this is a good thing, you are pretty much evil. Volunteering someone else's family to die? I hope your friends and coworkers in real life find out exactly the kind of person you are.

Dude, it is hypothetical. If in real life you think this guy could stand and internationally broadcast his proposal for what I think would qualify as a near mass extinction then I think you greatly over estimate how good he thinks this idea truly is. Chances are he merely thinks it's a good idea because it is hypothetical and he is removed from the situation. Very few people could really get an idea like this out there without chickening out.

I wouldn't be so upset.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Splitting this off from another thread which was getting OT.

The central supposition is that if all humanity were reduced to 10% of it's current population (evenly) that this would be a good thing for the long term survival of humankind. There are some who disagree with this statement, and we'll let them explain their positions. Brace yourself for doomsday and end of the world scenarios.

Not so good for the people being "reduced", I imagine.

How do you propose to enact this master plan? Drawing straws? Names from a hat? A lottery? How would we pick the few lucky fethers who get to live?

Oh, and what happens when the 90% of the worlds population being "reduced" inevitably resists?


I'm with Stephen Hawking. I posit that the best chance for humanity's long term survival lies in leaving our solar system and exploring the universe, gaining access to the INFINITE resources and worlds that are out there. Hell, just last week the NASA Kepler mission confirmed the discovery of a "near-Earth-size planet in the “habitable zone” around a sun very similar to our star."

https://www.nasa.gov/ames/kepler/nasas-kepler-discovers-first-earth-size-planet-in-the-habitable-zone-of-another-star

Now, there is a rational case for population control and sustainable resource management, but deliberately reducing the human gene pool to 10% just strikes me as bat gak insane. And Stalinist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Splitting this off from another thread which was getting OT.

The central supposition is that if all humanity were reduced to 10% of it's current population (evenly) that this would be a good thing for the long term survival of humankind. There are some who disagree with this statement, and we'll let them explain their positions. Brace yourself for doomsday and end of the world scenarios.

Not so good for the people being "reduced", I imagine.

How do you propose to enact this master plan? Drawing straws? Names from a hat? A lottery? How would we pick the few lucky fethers who get to live?

Oh, and what happens when the 90% of the worlds population being "reduced" inevitably resists?


I'm with Stephen Hawking. I posit that the best chance for humanity's long term survival lies in leaving our solar system and exploring the universe, gaining access to the INFINITE resources and worlds that are out there. Hell, just last week the NASA Kepler mission confirmed the discovery of a "near-Earth-size planet in the “habitable zone” around a sun very similar to our star."


Deliberately reducing the human gene pool to 10% just strikes me as bat gak insane.

We also have the the much easier to obtain goal of becoming subterranean (the one where we live under ground and above).

We can create 2 societies, the mole people below and the normal people above. With this proposed method we can fit a lot more people on earth. The moles can live off people, mushrooms and raid the surfaces. The surface people will farm and protect their live stock from the mole people.

A system where we rely on each other. Moles mine for goods and trade for surface goods. The raiding is to ensure no one group can withhold resources from the other. Eventually humans will become two different types, the highly adapted mole people, and the surface people will become whatever we look like in the future.

This sounds cheaper and more exciting than space.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Not so good for the people being "reduced", I imagine.

How do you propose to enact this master plan? Drawing straws? Names from a hat? A lottery? How would we pick the few lucky fethers who get to live?

Grey Goo scenario would be the fairest. Infect the population with some sort of nano machine and then transmit the activation signal. Everyone rolls the dice and either instantly turns to a puddle of water and grey dust, or doesn't.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I'm with Stephen Hawking. I posit that the best chance for humanity's long term survival lies in leaving our solar system and exploring the universe, gaining access to the INFINITE resources and worlds that are out there. Hell, just last week the NASA Kepler mission confirmed the discovery of a "near-Earth-size planet in the “habitable zone” around a sun very similar to our star."

You have to get there first. And have technology in place to actually move resources up and down the gravity well cheaply. I don't think humanity has enough time left to develop the required technologies without things far nastier than 90% of everyone dying happening to humanity in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:


We also have the the much easier to obtain goal of becoming subterranean (the one where we live under ground and above).

We can create 2 societies, the mole people below and the normal people above. With this proposed method we can fit a lot more people on earth. The moles can live off people, mushrooms and raid the surfaces. The surface people will farm and protect their live stock from the mole people.

A system where we rely on each other. Moles mine for goods and trade for surface goods. The raiding is to ensure no one group can withhold resources from the other. Eventually humans will become two different types, the highly adapted mole people, and the surface people will become whatever we look like in the future.

This sounds cheaper and more exciting than space.

HG Wells is on the line, his lawyers want to talk to you..

There isn't a single doomsday prediction that has ever come true.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now, there is a rational case for population control and sustainable resource management, but deliberately reducing the human gene pool to 10% just strikes me as bat gak insane. And Stalinist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Except Stalin wasn't practicing population control, he was slaughtering farmers because he didn't like them.

10% of current is the lowest you can, in theory, go, while still maintaining industrial civilization. The idea being to give humanity max breathing space while not excessively hampering forward technological development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
There isn't a single doomsday prediction that has ever come true.

And yet we spend billions, every year, just in case.

The tech is there, it's just a matter of implementing it. I think since society is focused more on greed and personal profit rather than the betterment of the whole, it would likely take a doomsday level scenario to get it going.

I say the best way to go about this for all involved parties is through the gradual depopulation. Start shipping people off world to colonies. Start with orbital elevator to get people and material off the surface. Costruct Island-2 or Island-3 type habitats and begin sending people to them. From there you can begin setting up lunar and Martian habitats and keep going. There's also the chance that scientific communities in these colonies could produce new breakthroughs in science and technology that could speed up the process.

I have a modest proposal for this thread

The easy and simple things that can be done now is for people to voluntarily stop breeding.

Of course then you still have the religious nutters doing that "Be fruitful and multiply nonsense which is what got us here in the first place.

I have a host of health issues, I decided not to inflict that on any offspring by not having any.

 Barzam wrote:
The tech is there, it's just a matter of implementing it. I think since society is focused more on greed and personal profit rather than the betterment of the whole, it would likely take a doomsday level scenario to get it going.

I say the best way to go about this for all involved parties is through the gradual depopulation. Start shipping people off world to colonies. Start with orbital elevator to get people and material off the surface. Costruct Island-2 or Island-3 type habitats and begin sending people to them. From there you can begin setting up lunar and Martian habitats and keep going. There's also the chance that scientific communities in these colonies could produce new breakthroughs in science and technology that could speed up the process.

A permanent Lunar base is possible with today's technology. I expect I'll see at least a temporary base on Mars within my lifetime (e.g. by 2100).

Sadly, we lack the political will.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
The easy and simple things that can be done now is for people to voluntarily stop breeding.

Of course then you still have the religious nutters doing that "Be fruitful and multiply nonsense which is what got us here in the first place.

I have a host of health issues, I decided not to inflict that on any offspring by not having any.

What?

Hahaha.

I mean, most people have kids because it is in their nature to do so... Most people who do not have kids are usually not having them because they are unable to. Not because of religion. I tip my fedora to you sir!

Something interesting to note: I am the only one out of my group of friends who would not be dead if we where all born naturally. All my friends had complications at birth that would have resulted in death apparently. The real problem with over population? Medical Science. So lets all stop practicing that eh? (see how dumb that sounds?).

When we run out of living space on the ocean floor then I will sweat it..............wait.............We be dead.......
Solar Plasma Flares will kill us all anyway.
How would you spend your last 12 hours if your on the side of Earth that would get nailed eh

Yes a reduction of our numbers by 90% would help the planet, it will a,lso benefit us in the longer term.
I am assuming this cull happens evenly, rather than denuding some populations while leaving others intact.

best way to achieve this is not by killing anyone, a virus causing widespread, but not total sterility is the best choice, as it can spread amonst the human population and as it kills nobody and is dispersed into the bulk of humanity before it is wodely noticed.
This will however mean the 90% drop in population is over a period of time.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Now, there is a rational case for population control and sustainable resource management, but deliberately reducing the human gene pool to 10% just strikes me as bat gak insane. And Stalinist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Except Stalin wasn't practicing population control, he was slaughtering farmers because he didn't like them.

10% of current is the lowest you can, in theory, go, while still maintaining industrial civilization. The idea being to give humanity max breathing space while not excessively hampering forward technological development.

Randomly selecting 90% of human population would excessively hamper forward technological development. You could random kill every scientist and educator. Or more likely with 90% dead and societial priorities completely changing, they would simply leave their old life in favor of attempting to survive in a world that is rapidly becoming more hostile to their survival.

What makes ya'll think we're over populated?

Drive to the country side... the US (at least) got land to spare.

Study the Black Death and it's aftermath, then multiply that.

I'd be part of the 10%. I'm too awesome to die.

But I'll pray for all you poor bastards that don't survive the cullings.

Here's a better proposal, more realistic, and less psychotic.

Birth control / social welfare continues to kick in and/or Chinese style government mandates reduce the population in 5 generations to 10%.

"Talk amongst yourselves..."

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's a better proposal, more realistic, and less psychotic.

Birth control / social welfare continues to kick in and/or Chinese style government mandates reduce the population in 5 generations to 10%.

"Talk amongst yourselves..."

Mole people make better history.

Plus we can sing "Mole people, Mole people. Look like Mole, talk like people." Unless of course you are a surface dweller.

So this discussion is all just grim masturbatory material for would-be dooms day preppers?

Dear Diary: Today I learned about a new fetish on DakkaDakka.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So this discussion is all just grim masturbatory material for would-be dooms day preppers?

Dear Diary: Today I learned about a new fetish on DakkaDakka.

No! It's really gonna happen at the end of next week! Didn't you get the...wait a minute, you aren't in the 10%, so you wouldn't have gotten the instruction book for after. Never mind, just get along with the rest of your...life.