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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'd be part of the 10%.

Same here, I still have models that need to be assembled and painted. Therefore, I am immortal.

I can't comprehend how someone could possibly think killing 90% of all humans is a good idea. Seriously, what went wrong in your development ?
Unless of course that person isn't actually a person at all, but an infiltrated alien spy and this is all part of "the plan".

Eliminating 90% of the population is a mere short-term solution. The best way to guarantee the continued existence of multicellular life is to eliminate 100% of the human race.

This topic is fething flying rodent gak. I mean, even ignoring the fairly significant moral issues with killing more than 5 billion people, the actual logic underpinning it is gibberish. In fact, even ignoring the unstated and highly dubious assumptions about sustainability, and even ignoring that resource use is driven more by living standards than population numbers, it's still complete and utter gibberish.

The thing about having 7 billion people is that if gak goes bad and that population proves unsustainable, then it will reduce to a sustainable level by itself. You don't have to pre-empt that by killing people - if it did ever happen the problem would sort itself out.

Effectively the premise in the OP is that we have to kill people now to prevent people possibly dying later. It's fething nuts.

 sebster wrote:
This topic is fething flying rodent gak. I mean, even ignoring the fairly significant moral issues with killing more than 5 billion people, the actual logic underpinning it is gibberish. In fact, even ignoring the unstated and highly dubious assumptions about sustainability, and even ignoring that resource use is driven more by living standards than population numbers, it's still complete and utter gibberish.

The thing about having 7 billion people is that if gak goes bad and that population proves unsustainable, then it will reduce to a sustainable level by itself. You don't have to pre-empt that by killing people - if it did ever happen the problem would sort itself out.

Effectively the premise in the OP is that we have to kill people now to prevent people possibly dying later. It's fething nuts.

Presumably, the rationale behind this thought experiment is a controlled depopulation event would be fair, 9 out of ten across the board. As opposed to what would happen if were to happen "by itself"; Africa, South America and SE Asia would take the brunt of the brutality and mass starvation while N America and W Europe would continue relatively unscathed.

Isn't there a whole market of books and movies dedicated to teenage girls about this.

 feeder wrote:
Presumably, the rationale behind this thought experiment is a controlled depopulation event would be fair, 9 out of ten across the board. As opposed to what would happen if were to happen "by itself"; Africa, South America and SE Asia would take the brunt of the brutality and mass starvation while N America and W Europe would continue relatively unscathed.

Well that just makes it crazier.

 sebster wrote:
This topic is fething flying rodent gak. I mean, even ignoring the fairly significant moral issues with killing more than 5 billion people, the actual logic underpinning it is gibberish. In fact, even ignoring the unstated and highly dubious assumptions about sustainability, and even ignoring that resource use is driven more by living standards than population numbers, it's still complete and utter gibberish.

The thing about having 7 billion people is that if gak goes bad and that population proves unsustainable, then it will reduce to a sustainable level by itself. You don't have to pre-empt that by killing people - if it did ever happen the problem would sort itself out.

Effectively the premise in the OP is that we have to kill people now to prevent people possibly dying later. It's fething nuts.

In Mass Effect 3 they called it true artistic vision.

 Radiation wrote:
Isn't there a whole market of books and movies dedicated to teenage girls about this.

i must be missing the joke.

 Desubot wrote:

 Radiation wrote:
Isn't there a whole market of books and movies dedicated to teenage girls about this.

i must be missing the joke.

I think he means Post apacalyptic YA.

Guys, stop and think about it for a second: resources are finite. Even a modest colonization of this solar system would require massive amounts of resources with very little initial return on the investment (look at the financial ruin Jamestown and most New England colonies wrought on their investors).

Resources will be scarce enough in the next two to three generations that you will see wars for more resources than just oil. As things get worse, expect some dim bulb to decide that releasing bioweapons on their neighbors is a good idea, as they have the lowest resource consumption for highest effect, and tend not to destroy the resources you're coveting.

At which point the gak really hits the fan.

A few of you have mentioned plagues, and the Black Death in particular. It's interesting to note that most plagues have not really set civilization back much, (notice that culture, technology, and science continued to advance throughout the Black Death, despite it's depopulating effect on Europe.)

Wars, however, do not do much to reduce population. There's almost always a spike in births following a war.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Guys, stop and think about it for a second: resources are finite. Even a modest colonization of this solar system would require massive amounts of resources with very little initial return on the investment (look at the financial ruin Jamestown and most New England colonies wrought on their investors).

Resources will be scarce enough in the next two to three generations that you will see wars for more resources than just oil. As things get worse, expect some dim bulb to decide that releasing bioweapons on their neighbors is a good idea, as they have the lowest resource consumption for highest effect, and tend not to destroy the resources you're coveting.

At which point the gak really hits the fan.

A few of you have mentioned plagues, and the Black Death in particular. It's interesting to note that most plagues have not really set civilization back much, (notice that culture, technology, and science continued to advance throughout the Black Death, despite it's depopulating effect on Europe.)

Wars, however, do not do much to reduce population. There's almost always a spike in births following a war.

What resources will we fight over soon?

Water?

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

Seeing how much water there is on the planet, that seems unlikely.

 feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
This topic is fething flying rodent gak. I mean, even ignoring the fairly significant moral issues with killing more than 5 billion people, the actual logic underpinning it is gibberish. In fact, even ignoring the unstated and highly dubious assumptions about sustainability, and even ignoring that resource use is driven more by living standards than population numbers, it's still complete and utter gibberish.

The thing about having 7 billion people is that if gak goes bad and that population proves unsustainable, then it will reduce to a sustainable level by itself. You don't have to pre-empt that by killing people - if it did ever happen the problem would sort itself out.

Effectively the premise in the OP is that we have to kill people now to prevent people possibly dying later. It's fething nuts.

Presumably, the rationale behind this thought experiment is a controlled depopulation event would be fair, 9 out of ten across the board. As opposed to what would happen if were to happen "by itself"; Africa, South America and SE Asia would take the brunt of the brutality and mass starvation while N America and W Europe would continue relatively unscathed.

Isn't that called 'natural selection'?
Africa, South America and SE Asia contain the vast majority of the world's population, so they would have to take the brunt regardless.
This idea is still completely idiotic. Why not fight over something worthwile, like chocolate?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

Seeing how much water there is on the planet, that seems unlikely.

If we truly do start running out of water it would seem hard for an army that lacks water to be able to function anyway. I mean, armies in the past have had trouble keeping their men supplied with water, surely that will be harder when water is rare enough to mobalize armies for.

Do you regard yourself as part of the surplus population? if not, how you do you know you are not ?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

Seeing how much water there is on the planet, that seems unlikely.

If we truly do start running out of water it would seem hard for an army that lacks water to be able to function anyway. I mean, armies in the past have had trouble keeping their men supplied with water, surely that will be harder when water is rare enough to mobalize armies for.

Yeah, you go march around looking for water, I'll camp my army right next to the sea and build a desalination plant.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

Zinc. Its the future!

Look at what happened after the 'flu epidemic or black plague.
A huge swathe of the population dies, and society almost collapses, causing more death.

There is not a single way that 90% of the world's population suddenly vanishing or turning to "Grey Goo" works. Not even a little bit.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

Seeing how much water there is on the planet, that seems unlikely.

Drinkable water, however, is a resource people will fight for. And already are doing.

They are some that see this as the tipping point in lack of resources leading to unrest.

Google it. Plenty of articles. India is doing irreversible damage to the availability/quality of its drinking water. China faces a similar issue and change could be seen as an infringement on neighbouring countries.

I mean, we have an entire continent made of drinkable water. There is serious concern that the rapidly increasing destruction of said continent will lead to ocean desalinization, which would have a devastating effect on ocean life (and thus most life surrounding it).

The issue, as with most things, isn't amount, but rather transportation. Getting it where it needs to be.

 streamdragon wrote:
I mean, we have an entire continent made of drinkable water. There is serious concern that the rapidly increasing destruction of said continent will lead to ocean desalinization, which would have a devastating effect on ocean life (and thus most life surrounding it).

The issue, as with most things, isn't amount, but rather transportation. Getting it where it needs to be.

How would you get desalination in the ocean?? The way tidal flows work, the current model that geologists use shows that a decrease in water flowing to the sea/ocean has the direct result of salt water being "sucked" into the river system (as in, salt water goes in, not gets pushed further out)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Radiation wrote:
Isn't there a whole market of books and movies dedicated to teenage girls about this.

i must be missing the joke.

I think he means Post apacalyptic YA.

Didn't realize teenage girls were into that sort o thing :/

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

Seeing how much water there is on the planet, that seems unlikely.

But how much drinkable water.


Edit: at Above, i think he means the arctics. at which point who owns it, who controls it, and who the feth would give it away for free?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I mean, we have an entire continent made of drinkable water. There is serious concern that the rapidly increasing destruction of said continent will lead to ocean desalinization, which would have a devastating effect on ocean life (and thus most life surrounding it).

The issue, as with most things, isn't amount, but rather transportation. Getting it where it needs to be.

How would you get desalination in the ocean?? The way tidal flows work, the current model that geologists use shows that a decrease in water flowing to the sea/ocean has the direct result of salt water being "sucked" into the river system (as in, salt water goes in, not gets pushed further out)

Well, melting ice caps would pretty much be the opposite of "a decrease in water flowing to the sea/ocean".

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Water?

And food. Arable land is at a premium in some places atm. While right now we have surplus production world wide, the ability to produce food is finite.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Look at what happened after the 'flu epidemic or black plague.
A huge swathe of the population dies, and society almost collapses, causing more death.

Actually, if i recall correctly, in England is was the workers demanding higher pay following the black death that caused more death.

Can you please link the "demands of higher pay caused further death" source?

Yes Urban laborers got paid more and laws against it failed to do anything, but I have never heard of it causing more death? If anything that was a bonus for us as time went on. Even peasants had a boost in prosperity, but causing more death?

Not sure about that dude...

 Swastakowey wrote:
Can you please link the "demands of higher pay caused further death" source?

Yes Urban laborers got paid more and laws against it failed to do anything, but I have never heard of it causing more death? If anything that was a bonus for us as time went on. Even peasants had a boost in prosperity, but causing more death?

Not sure about that dude...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

Why settle with 90%? May as well go for the full 100% if you want to save the planet.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Guys, stop and think about it for a second: resources are finite. Even a modest colonization of this solar system would require massive amounts of resources with very little initial return on the investment (look at the financial ruin Jamestown and most New England colonies wrought on their investors).

Resources will be scarce enough in the next two to three generations that you will see wars for more resources than just oil. As things get worse, expect some dim bulb to decide that releasing bioweapons on their neighbors is a good idea, as they have the lowest resource consumption for highest effect, and tend not to destroy the resources you're coveting.

At which point the gak really hits the fan.

A few of you have mentioned plagues, and the Black Death in particular. It's interesting to note that most plagues have not really set civilization back much, (notice that culture, technology, and science continued to advance throughout the Black Death, despite it's depopulating effect on Europe.)

Wars, however, do not do much to reduce population. There's almost always a spike in births following a war.

I'm with sebster on this... this is no different than discussing 'what we would do during the Zombie Apocalyspe'.

Also... you're always leaving out the impact of any future advances in technologies and techniques.

Many believe that we'll have a sustainable fusion reactor in our lifetime.