Is a pandemic or superflu the answer to truly saving this planet?

Question

do you think a significant whipout of the worlds population is the best chance to save this planet from human destruction, polution, so on and so on? sad but i think it is....and if u believe it to be true ..what percentage of people need to go? i think about 60% at least...just me.

Answer 1

Well aren't you mister positive?

I think a pandemic or superflu would just s***w up the world even more.

Answer 2

How very revealing your assessment is .As to which camp you belong.

An American statesmen at a Bilderberg meeting in 1998 in Copenhagen said that the new world order Agenda demanded a 60% cut in the worlds population .

By any means

And there have been sneaky rumors of Asian flu where the vaccines killed more people than the Flu itself ,

Aids and Ebola are suspect as fabricated illnesses to combat world population

Also chemical changes in potable water and popular consumer drinks ,that raise the PH levels .making the consumers infertile or their offspring g*y, to slow down human productivity.

As well as poisoned  popular LEGAL medicines.or consumer products such as cigarettes with added chemicals that kill and make them more addictive.

But the biggest most successful human solution to overpopulation must be the Nuclear  global war ,the Americans are  orchestrating

Global Warming may be Natures answer in the end .

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 3

I've been posing this solution for a while. I thought it would take a huge nuclear war to wipe off the human race so the earth can renew itself before all the species of animals are extinct and the natural habitat and water poluted and destroyed, but that would cause a lot of pollution and damage and radiation. I like your idea better, that a disease could do a better job of wiping out people while preserving the habitat so that the planet can rejuvinate without the destructive human parasite on it. Or if there was a massive epidemic of natural disasters - major earthquakes, floods, tornados, hurricanes and volcanic activity on a large and global scale would work too but again I wouldn't want other animals to get killed so the super human flu would be the best solution. I think if about a few hundred people in each country were left that would be nice, but the remains of the earth destructive machines would still be availble for them to pick up and so I think everyone has to go. Your idea of 60% going would be like getting rid of only 60% of fleas on a pet dog. The 40% would just repopulate and cause the same damage. All have to go and maybe more intelligent life can appear.

Answer 4

Wow...  That's incredible.  I think it's horrible to put the well-being over the planet over the well-being of people.  The truth is, yes, we need to take care of the earth, but not worship it.  The earth is decaying.  Everything is decaying.  That's the way things go (despite the "evolution" lie).  If global warming is even happening, we don't know if we're the cause, or how much of it is our fault.  The earth changes temperature over time.  It always has an always will.  Anyways, it's horrible to even think like you're thinking.  No one needs to die to "save" the planet.

Answer 5

No.

Even if it killed off 75% of the population, it would only be a matter of time before we were back to the current population levels and growing.

What we need is a steady state world economy and zero net population growth.

Both of those things will be nearly impossible to achieve by conscious effort, so we'll probably have to wait untill the next ecological limiting factor kicks in and keeps our populatons in check.  It may be disease, but if it is, it will be an increase in disease in general, rather than a single incident of pandemic.

Answer 6

As long as some of them don't turn into Vampires or Zombies or something like on "I am Legend" and then some others survive... that would suck... and then you're hitting on Mannaquins cause your dog is dead... all to save the world... seriously, all people need to go to completely save the world, otherwise we'd just breed, re-populate, and ruin it all over again... there was a cool discovery channel show about what would happen if people died out.

Answer 7

Thats kind of a negative thing to say.  You sound like you don't have any faith in other people.  The world would be a sad place with 60% of the population gone.

Answer 8

Hmm, finally an interesting question on  Yahoo Answers. Your suggestion would be a "quick and dirty" fix, although I do feel that unless changes are made at a deeper level, the population would bounce right back after a few generations.

Maybe a global 1 child per family policy (a la China) would be the world's best long term solution to population control. I must admit, the idea of a 8 billion human population 50 years from now is terrifying when one considers the present state of what remains of our natural world. I've included an interesting link which looks at  human population trends and gives a few predicitions.

Finally, back to your % question. Considering the state of the environment, the climate and human nature, I would suggest nothing short of a 90% reduction in global human population. I've had similar conversations with others in the past and it always amuses me how everyone thinks that [a] most of the people in the world need snuffing out and [b] they themselves shouldn't be included.

Good luck with you WMD! :P

Answer 9

If you believe this ... show leadership and become one of the 60%.  You really are talking about murder now.

Flu tends to wipe out older people, and it may have the same effect as small forest fires do in clearing underbrush.  This might have been important in the past, but nowadays all the heavy lifting and thinking is done by machines, so I don't think this is a factor anymore.

There is a remote chance, but one nevertheless, that a large meteor will strike the earth before you read this last sentence.  Sterilizing almost all life on earth.

So let people live their lives to the fullest, and que sara sara.

Answer 10

Well I dont know the percentage but I would say that if a lot of corrupt and jealous,hateful people die the world may become a better place.

We just have too many problem people around, numbers may not be an issue the minds of some people may be the biggest problem.

Answer 11

You are not the first to have such ideas.  If you want more information, I would recommend looking at:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. http://www.vhemt.org/

and/or

The Church of Euthanasia

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

I by no means support such organizations, I simply seek to inform.  I feel that mass social change could be just as, or better than, mass extinctions.  I leave it to you to decide which is more likely.

Answer 12

Yeah I agree the worlds population needs to be reduced. But which ones and who decides?

Maybe we should let nature decide. Stop sending aid to Africa etc. Maybe global warming will provide the cull that is needed.

Answer 13

No -- cull to threshold populations would merely delay the inevitable.

Answer 14

Hmm that's a very interesting theory.

Most people are going to call you terrible and inhumane.

But honestly, mass extinctions are very common on this planet. We have totally spun out of nature's way, we are overpopulated and not respecting nature's rules. Especially in overpopulation... I've always been an advocate in controlling populations.

Anyways, you have a good point. While I wouldn't want to see half the world's population wiped out, I think that it coorlate well with the past billion years.