Thinning the herd?

Question

If scientists determine that a 40% reduction in the human population is necessary to avoid ecological destruction, what do you think is the fairest way to determine who lives and who dies?

Answer 1

i dont think there is any fair way to solve the problems. the birth rate has increased by 40% since the 1900s. we cant just say he dies and she lives or vice versa. what we can do is reduce the birth rate. everyone has the right to live their life to the fullest.

but truly i believe that who ever thought that we can just decide who lives n who dies is just plain wrong. its Hitler all over again.. instead its no longer the jews, its 40% or more of the people in the world. the current world population is about 6.5 billion. so 40% of that is 2.6 bill. that means 2.6 billion people are going to die? how does that seem fair?

survival of the fittest? that will cause more distruction. people who are more physically and mentally stronger will fight with others of the same. soon not only will the weak die, the stronger ones will die fighting among themselves too

all we can do is just prevent the population from increasing drastically. that is the only fair solution to this problem..

Answer 2

I beleive this has already been determined but nobody wants to step up and make it a law...Infact several years ago the United Nations said the maximum sustainable level is 5 Billion - we are currently over 6.5 Billion.

First I would not nessecarily kill anyone - after all if you were born it wasnt your fault for that.. there is always a good number of people who would volunteer to be killed - those suffering in pain because the medical profession wont allow them to die..etc..

ok then I would "Spay and Neuter" most of the rest.. we willingly control the growth of other populations and need to do the same with our own..

if people didnt pass certain qualifications (eg. like dogs at a dog show) they wouldnt be allowed to breed.

I would have 2 types of shows.. you would have to qualify enough points in either type to be allowed to breed.

1.  Conformation.  Good teeth (no braces), Straight legs, spine, etc, no genetic health issues that will cost the health care system in the future

2.  Intelligence.  If you are smart enough you can pass on those smart genes to your kids.

all others would live but couldnt multiply.. or perhaps could have 1 kid then would face manditory sterilization.

Myself.. I had 1 kid then had tubes tied.

Answer 3

They should outlaw procreation. That would actually work good for me, because my fiancee wants 4 kids and I don't want any. I'm even scared of the average.

Answer 4

Basically, humanity should be culled in this order:

1st:   Lawyers

2nd : Fat chicks

3rd:  Star Trek Fans

4th:   Politicians

and so on......

Answer 5

You people are nuts.  Someone has already tried thinning the herd, his name was Hitler.

If that is what you are suggesting, then we should make concentration camps and put those whom you feel are less worthy to live in them until they can be gassed or shot.

Update:

I can't believe all of you people who think we should exterminate ourselves.  I'm sure you feel you are included in the ones who should live or you wouldn't be recommending these measures.

Answer 6

Survival of the fittest is the only sustainable measure, Up the gas prices and decentralise, that would be a fair approximate model of the future we will have to be fit for.

Answer 7

War is how we've been doing it throughout the ages, why stop now?  

In any case they'd phase it in and accomplish it through population control, and since that's such a hot potato I think the scientists would be overruled, as they so often are.

Answer 8

The fairest way is to make having children a privilege, not a right. We have already had to give up a lot of "rights", which  were turned into "privileges", such as land development, water use, hunting or fishing, and now atmospheric emissions.  If all those things can be regulated, so can having children.  We can, for example, use "carbon rights" as a model for regulating childbirth, where only a certain number would be allowed per year, and everybody can either have one, or sell his/her rights to someone else.  Right now, the concept seems so horrific to people, who have always believed that having unlimited children is one of the most fundamental God-given rights of mankind, but I trust that it won't be long before the general population realize that overcrowding is running the planet down, and we have no alternative.

Addendum:  Judging from all the thumbs down all the answerers are getting, I would say that to even think that population level should be controlled is an, well, unpopular idea.

Answer 9

There is no such thing in your scenario as 'Fair' it would only be the most prepared who would survive. Or the strongest, most capable Alpha males and their women and children. This may or may not include wealthy people, depending on the 'value' of money at that time. The survivors would include those who held the power in other ways, 'guns, land, followers?'

Population is best controlled by s*x education, free contraception and self limiting the size of your family. In developing countries the development of health and social care, the development of community and trading communities and s*x education, free contraception and self limiting of size of family. However for as long as we in the West exploit developing countries they will remain unable to have a 'real living wage' health care that mitigates against infant mortality and premature illness so they will continue to need large families to guarantee somebody to support them in their old age or through illness.

Answer 10

I think the number is probably closer to 80% reduction in the human population.

Draw straws...it is the fairest way...

Answer 11

Shoot all people with even SSN's.

Wait... let me see....

No, I mean shoot everyone with odd SSN,

Yes, odd it is.

Answer 12

In Japan, for every extra chiled they were taxed an additional $10,000 yen per kid each year.  That's on top of the taxes they already paid.  They also placed a social stigma on a woman who had too many kids. Things like, no one would hire her because she's so hard up for money.

Now, Japan is in a population decline.  The system worked so well and NO ONE had kids.  Now they are trying to reverse that by giving financial rewards for parents who have children.  

You really can't have it either way.  The problem with trying to control population is that you can't without having an uproar about the infringement on our rights.

Take abortion for example.  You could say that this method is a way of reducing the population - whether you think it's right or not is besides the point.  However, abortion rights is yet to be determined by law, there are loop holes, and it is always controversial or dangerous.

I think the best way to avoid ecological destruction is for the government to regulate what the consumer can buy.  Phase out light bulbs and nothing but CFLs.  Allow only recycleable materials.  Reward those who recycle and save and tax those who don't.  Or something on the lines of that.

However, we would never see this because the government has placed so much red tape on themselves to get anything done, that nothing get's done.  The simplest thing takes years to go through.

Picking off people isn't going to work.  And even if it did, it's only short term because people will always continue to pop out kids.  Not only that but the people of America wouldn't allow their government to kill of any sort of group of people.  It would be chaos.  What gives humans the right to judge on whether other humans live or die?

Answer 13

This is a very controversial question as China has tried to reduce its population by giving preference to families that only have one child, well if you look at the new figures, china will have a problem with not having enough people in the future because of this, if you can believe that...not enough females will be left.

Personally, I do not believe that just having one child will work.  We have spent millions on "living longer" and keeping people alive that would have died in the not so distant past.  If we are reducing the population over a few years, there would be a different answer, but if we had to reduce the population by 40% tomorrow only....lets first take all our death row inmates and "get it over with". second, lets unplug those that there is no hope for recovery, lets allow those who are terminal to commit doctor assisted suicide.  I live in Texas, and our prison system is overflowing with death row inmates (although we do lead the country in death sentences carried out)  Perhaps we could just execute all of ours and it might make close to the 40% needed.

Answer 14

The ancients or pagan of thousands of years ago new that earths human population should not exceed 500 million the amount that is in perpetual balance with nature. Today the Illuminati have this population count as one of their 10 commandments.  Google Georgia Stonehenge.

Answer 15

Obviously the criminals, terrorists, and bad drivers decide because they are the ones killing everyone.

Answer 16

Mother Nature has her own way of taking care of business.  She needs no intervention by man.

Think:  floods, tsunami's, plagues and other diseases, earthquakes, volcanoes, drought, famine.

Then, there is always man-made war and genocide.

I think there is no need for population control....

Answer 17

war: the only abattoir where the cows are expected to bury themselves ...

or ...

I pick who lives and who dies

The scientists will probably use some form of Eugenics rather than letting natural selection take its course.