ANUS.COM, why do you want to kill me?

[Conservationist]

All these extra humans, what do they do? What function do they serve? What do they have that cannot easily be produced by others?

...crickets...

Yep, thought so.

Egalitarian thinking takes many disguises.

[Tralfamadorian]

I don't think that the  the killing off of billions will  take down civilisation. Genghis Khan bled off china yet their civilisation didn't collapse. Humanity has suffer a lot through history but I have always thrive to this day. This will not change.

The state of Russia and China today are testaments to his legacy: 3rd world countries mimicking superpower status, barely held together at the seams by a tyrannical oligarchy.

Let's say we scrap that solution: what would you do to change the curring way the world is heading?

It's not to late for disaster to be averted.

-Make world governments immune to the machinations of the corporations vying for supremacy.
-Start hardline education programs to help people and businesses transition into eco-friendly, conservative lifestyles. Recycle everything, make your products last a lifetime, no SUVs etc. ("liberty" is going to be the biggest enemy in this phase.)
-Restructure communities to make them centralized, self-sustaining units not dependent on imports
-Concurrent with this education is a massive paradigm shift in industry that will shy away from disposable products as the meat n potatoes of our economy. Industries will be strictly regulated and must obey environmental guidelines or else face complete shutdown. Lobbying must become a thing of the past.
-Set strict guidelines as to which areas are for development and which are going to be left as  untouched nature; over 50% of all land needs to designated as not for development.
-Incentivize smart people to have more babies.
-Stop feeding 3rd world countries and start leading them. Parts of their populations can go back to preindustrial lifestyles, other part will convert to modern-modern living thus stabilizing population growth.
-Nuclear power and synfuels like alcohol, hydrogen, and hydrazine can avert the impending fossil fuel crisis.
etc...

I don't have all the answers, but what I do know is this: Mass murder would ruin humanity. All other options must be explored before reverting to Eugenics.

Forcing the defectives into woodchippers would deliver the same end results, plus nice mulch for reforestation, so what difference does it make really?

Your insouciance makes me think your genocide policy is just a giant troll to get people to think of better ways to fix the world.

[Conservationist]

-Make world governments immune to the machinations of the corporations vying for supremacy.

How? Corporations do what their stockholders tell them to do. Stockholders are ordinary people. They also vote.

-Start hardline education programs to help people and businesses transition into eco-friendly, conservative lifestyles. Recycle everything, make your products last a lifetime, etc. ("liberty" is going to be the biggest enemy in this phase.)

And they will comply with this education why?

-Restructure communities to make them centralized, self-sustaining units not dependent on imports

How?

-Concurrent with this education is a massive paradigm shift in industry that will shy away from disposable products as the meat n potatoes of our economy. Industries will be strictly regulated and must obey environmental guidelines or else face complete shutdown. Lobbying must become a thing of the past.

See second comment.

-Set strict guidelines as to which areas are for development and which are going to be left as  untouched nature; over 50% of all land needs to designated as not for development.

This sounds good, but you may need to raise that figure to 75%.

-Incentivize smart people to have more babies.

I can agree with this. How do you select "smart" people?

-Stop feeding 3rd world countries and start leading them. Parts of their populations can go back to preindustrial lifestyles, other part will convert to modern-modern living thus stabilizing population growth.

Excellent.

-Nuclear power and synfuels like alcohol, hydrogen, and hydrazine can avert the impending fossil fuel crisis.
etc...

Do you want more nuclear power plants out there, given our somewhat bad record of late?

Mass murder would ruin humanity. All other options must be explored before reverting to Eugenics.

How would it "ruin humanity"?

[lost_wanderer]

I will play the devil's advocate here

1) Kill off all the under 120s
Do you think that someone who's retarded but really a bigger threat to humanity in comparison of a douchebag whom you will only ship back to New York?

2) Kill off all the pedophiles
If Beethoven or Frédéric Nietzsche, would you kill them too? And if science finally discover that all humans have that gene, would you wipe the entire human race?

3) Kill off all the criminals
What is your definition of criminal? Who will decide who's criminal or not?

4) Isolate douchebags in New York
Why not sending them to antartica instead?

5) Isolate all the fools and liars in New York
Why not in las Vegas instead?

6) Nuclear halo over Austin
I don't have a problem with that.


Why not elevate our consciousness so  we will leave this realm of insanity
Now, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL WORLD IT WOULD BE
Well maybe not for the warrior spirit

[Conservationist]

I will play the devil's advocate here

HAIL SATAN

1) Kill off all the under 120s
Do you think that someone who's retarded but really a bigger threat to humanity in comparison of a douchebag whom you will only ship back to New York?

I think that if we want to evolve to the next level, we need to enforce a population bottleneck which establishes a baseline. This will also eliminate a lot of the useless, parasitic and douchebag behavior.

A world without Justin Bieber.

2) Kill off all the pedophiles
If Beethoven or Frédéric Nietzsche, would you kill them too? And if science finally discover that all humans have that gene, would you wipe the entire human race?

Were they pedophiles? Sounds like a factual question.

Which great contributors were actually pedophiles?

3) Kill off all the criminals
What is your definition of criminal? Who will decide who's criminal or not?

Criminal: one who acts against the common good for self-interest that does not augment the common good.

Any intelligent person can see who the criminals are, given access to the data.

4) Isolate douchebags in New York
Why not sending them to antartica instead?
5) Isolate all the fools and liars in New York
Why not in las Vegas instead?

6) Nuclear halo over Austin
I don't have a problem with that.

I don't want to send them to any protected ecosystems. LV and Antartica are out for that reason.

Why not elevate our consciousness so  we will leave this realm of insanity

That may not happen without some support from the physical world...

Well maybe not for the warrior spirit

...and without that, we have nothing.

[Tralfamadorian]

How? Corporations do what their stockholders tell them to do. Stockholders are ordinary people. They also vote.

Either have an enlightened despot and/or start educating kids early on that the world is in a precipitous state and it needs heroes to help it survive.

And they will comply with this education why?

Else they be socially ostracized and/or fined.

How?

Obviously it can't occur through government mandate or people would be whiny. It would require community leaders with extroardinary persuasiveness, selflessness, and ken.

I can agree with this. How do you select "smart" people?

I am wary of big brother type programs. It would have to occur at the micro level, where communities praise those who are intelligent and fertile.

Do you want more nuclear power plants out there, given our somewhat bad record of late?

Fukushima was based on outdated reactor designs. Had they been 3rd gen boiling water reacotrs, meltdown would have not occurred, as the only thing they need for their back up coolant systems to work is gravity. Nuclear power is too good to pass up, there is enough fuel out there (counting Thorium) to last for 3,000+ years. By the time they're up, we could be on other planets, thus expanding our resource pool.

How would it "ruin humanity"?

By violating our intrinsic morality: No killing unless in self defense. All societies have laws like this. Like I said before, mass murder would make a society of sociopaths.

Btw conservationist, what would you do if your son was under 120?

[lost_wanderer]

Which great contributors were actually pedophiles?

The ancients grec?

But then again, we all know what became of that country...

[scourge]

-Nuclear power and synfuels like alcohol, hydrogen, and hydrazine can avert the impending fossil fuel crisis.

None of those combined can be collected, refined and delivered to anywhere near the requirements currently met by fossil fuels. We're talking closer to 10% range and that is optimally, not anywhere close to three quarters or four fifths. Who in this broke, fuel-starved world is going to bankroll your multi-trillion dollar total infrastructure conversion anyway? The principle cause of any fossil fuels crisis is too many people in the world tapping in. Unlike with the fuel shortage problem, the population problem we do have the means to solve.

[Eleison]

Forcing the defectives into woodchippers would deliver the same end results, plus nice mulch for reforestation, so what difference does it make really?

I actually believe that this is not the most practical solution anyway, regardless of any other concerns.  It would create a massive void in the social fabric, not a simple problem, not to mention the fact that 20% of the population probably isn't a large enough workforce to supervise the slaughter of the other 80%, even if they didn't have to perform any other tasks.  Then there is a psychological issue, it is hardwired into our genetics to be repulsed by death/murder, most murderers are dysfunctional people.  The 20% of the population that remains will be severely psychologically destabilised by such an undertaking. 

It's actually hard to understand how any could think that this idea is...

a) possible
b)good

More careful consideration needs to be given about how to solve these problems in the real world, not some hessian dreamworld, otherwise we're just talking for the sake of talking.

[Wolfgang]

More careful consideration needs to be given about how to solve these problems in the real world, not some hessian dreamworld, otherwise we're just talking for the sake of talking.

You just nailed it so hard there's no way Jesus could be ripped down and resurrected ever.

[August]

Forcing the defectives into woodchippers would deliver the same end results, plus nice mulch for reforestation, so what difference does it make really?

I actually believe that this is not the most practical solution anyway, regardless of any other concerns.  It would create a massive void in the social fabric, not a simple problem, not to mention the fact that 20% of the population probably isn't a large enough workforce to supervise the slaughter of the other 80%, even if they didn't have to perform any other tasks.  Then there is a psychological issue, it is hardwired into our genetics to be repulsed by death/murder, most murderers are dysfunctional people.  The 20% of the population that remains will be severely psychologically destabilised by such an undertaking.  

It's actually hard to understand how any could think that this idea is...

a) possible
b)good

More careful consideration needs to be given about how to solve these problems in the real world, not some hessian dreamworld, otherwise we're just talking for the sake of talking.

It's just something that sounds cool to blurt out. And besides, I don't want to kill off my mentally retarded son no matter how much feces he throws on the living room chandelier, because I love him too much.

What is actually a good and realistic idea is if everyone learns their place in society and steps in line. The IQ 95 carpenters are not the problem in this world; it's the IQ 105 journalists and company executives and musicians and what have you.

[Conservationist]

I think it always was a figurative argument, but the point is that the literal act would be a positive step.

Let us first answer the question:

Would human civilization be better or worse if we fed all the under-120s into a woodchipper?

For several years, members of this forum and other places have danced around this question, never answering it.

[August]

I think it always was a figurative argument, but the point is that the literal act would be a positive step.

Let us first answer the question:

Would human civilization be better or worse if we fed all the under-120s into a woodchipper?

Worse of course. The collective trauma of any such act would make the remaining civilization implode. But it's a figurative question, the meat of which being: Is high quality better than low quality? Whoop dee doo, we all know the answer, but I doubt such an obvious conclusion makes us any wiser.

What we do need to ask, in a pragmatic fashion, is: Is this and that of high or low quality? Who needs to be put here and who needs to go there?

[Conservationist]

Do you really want to hurt me?

The collective trauma of any such act would make the remaining civilization implode.

I doubt that very much.

The USA slept through Hiroshima, Germans dozed through the Holocaust, Russians glazed over during the legislatively-induced famines.

We are sleeping on top of a giant underclass that murders, rapes, brutalizes and steals from itself constantly.

We are totally content to watch 5,000 cows get herded into a steak machine or to watch chicken farms toss male chicks into grinders.

Several billion people are starving and disease-ridden right now. We are content to give that 5 minutes a month of feeling bad, maybe writing a check to a useless NGO that will only make the problem worse, and then back to shopping.

It's not that there's something uniquely bad about us. It's just human, and any other intelligent creature would behave the same way.

If Trayvon Martin and his shooter were both black, we wouldn't have even cared there.

We'll implode?

Unlikely.

The unwanted will be removed to a remote location.
Machines will administer final IQ tests to ensure only the stupid are killed.
They will then be drugged with a cocktail of GHB and awesome.
Then herded down a path. At some point, numb and stoned, they will be led into a loud room.
The robot guides will be gone.
The floor will drop away.
Churning drums below will mash them into paste.

A few seconds of trauma and then nothingness.
A thick red paste flows out onto a specially designated fifty acres of desert, where the arid winds and blasting sun evaporate it.
Soon only a reddish dust remains.

Cleansing.

[August]

You miss the vital difference between any known genocide and the one in this scenario: The majority of everyone's own relations are victims. There will be trauma all right. For genocide you need groups on each side that that are (or at least see themselves as) either racially, culturally or religiously homogeneous.