Infantile Lottery Sterilization

[Led Zeppelin]

I thought the world population was supposed to plateau at around 10 billion. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...early-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Speaking of sterilisation .. remember when the allegations of genocide against the Chinese government were all the rage?
Handing out birth control to the Uigur minority was cited as an attempt "to genocide" that part of the Chinese population ... now is it just me, or did the whole of the US turn into christian fundamentalists on that topic? Keeping in mind, that it was not even alleged, that anyone was forced to take contraceptions. Nevermind that the source for that was completly discredited, both personally, as well as the article itself thanks to very faulty numbers.

Sometimes I do not get humans ... If we do it, its womens hygiene and health and family planning, if the Chinese government does it, its genocide, except if they do it to Han Chinese ... and for Christians its all angel making.

I thought the world population was supposed to plateau at around 10 billion. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...early-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/

I think thats only, if the Pope and evangelicals stops fucking around in an attempt to outbreed atheists and the planet does not try to eat us before that.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

I think thats only, if the Pope and evangelicals stops fucking around in an attempt to outbreed atheists and the planet does not try to eat us before that.

But actually the Pope doesnt have anything to do with your fertility rate. And whose to say that Christians and Muslims wont have children who are atheists?

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Yeah, that seems to be the plan, thanks for that Led Zeppelin.
And of course the Pope has something to do with the fertility rate, he is a sexy beast.

 

[amorrow2]

There is a lot of uncertainty in the UN population projections to the year 2100. The median line does show a leveling off, but the upper line shows continued growth. See

Projections of population growth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[amorrow2]

Gorbachev is still alive and still advocating getting rid of nuclear weapons.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again I ask: if 2.5 billion is the target,

Who says it's the target?

how do you get there from here without the chaos of violence?

Well, I mean can think of dozens of ways off the top of my head.

Let me guess: you can't.

Have you ever heard the expression that everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer?

The only working model that I know of is how we manage the populations of cats and dogs: forced sterilizations.

This is not true.

You don't know it's a working model - you assert it is a working model, and you ignore the actual working models which have consistently shown results in numerous countries over decades.

It may even amount to a human rights violation but at least it is orderly. At least it is not chaos.

Ahh a nice orderly beating - like any civilized tyrant.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another way to get from 7.5 billion to 2.5 billion would be to have a global one child policy, but it would take over 100 to get there.

I can assure you that your calculations are thoroughly flawed.

Also, your ideas are unworkable.

Why are you fixating on unworkable flawed ideas?

 

[Sparhafoc]

There is a lot of uncertainty in the UN population projections to the year 2100.

Quick tip: there's a lot of uncertainty in any population projection spanning 3-4 generations.

That's because the variables are unknown and potentially unknowable until hindsight.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I just wanna get to the part where innovation pays out in dividends, so dumb assholes can be like, "Well, can we force sterilize anyway?".

 

[Deleted member 42253]

@psikhrangkur "Just the poor people"

 

[Deleted member 619]

Gorbachev is still alive and still advocating getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Should this be in the other infantile fantasy thread?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I honestly don't get how any right-thinking person could get anywhere near this. The only difference between this an eugenics is the target. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that this is worse than eugenics. It's certainly no less disgusting or immoral.

hey, I've just had a great idea! We can join your two asinine threads, as you've accidentally done above, into one glorious thread with a dual aim. get rid of nukes and reduce the population to manageable levels. Pick a country with a high population and nuke the holy fuck out of it with every nuke we have. Nukes gone, population reduced, RESULT! You could even do it by lottery, if you like.

Or we could have a nuclear depopulation board game.

Honestly. I've encountered a lot of stupidity in my time, but these two threads are right fucking up there.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have a cunning plan to dramatically lessen both the number of nuclear weapons AND the number of people all with the press of just one button!

 

[Deleted member 42253]

Someone is going to eventually, we already had a lot of close calls.

Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents | atomicarchive.com

www.atomicarchive.com

 

[amorrow2]

Sorry for the mix up. I meant to put that Gorbachev post to the nuclear thread. My mistake.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Don't apologise. it was a perfect opportunity to show just how utterly fucking asinine what you're presenting is.

Never apologise for comedy, even unintentional comedy.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Fucking hilarious!

 

[amorrow2]

I ran across a book by an American who tries to make the argument that a one-child policy for the USA might be appropriate.

One Child

A compelling argument for the morality of limitations on procreation in lessening the harmful environmental effects of unchecked populationWe live in a world where a burgeoning global population has started to have a major and destructive environmental impact. The results, including climate...

global.oup.com

The author's name is Sarah Conley .

Sarah Conly | Bowdoin College

www.bowdoin.edu

Dr. Conley is in the philosophy department. Her other book is entitled " Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism" Well, she seems to have done more thinking about this than I have.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Another moron navel-gazer pontificating and drawing conclusions.

Protip: if it's drawing conclusions, it isn't philosophy.

She's a particularly despicable example.