Killing off the humans

Or you could just put a ban on how many babies you can have like they so resourcefully did in China. Allow assissted suicide for those who feel like a waste or space or are truley suffering, like Sweeden did. We could also stop complaing about abortion because as far as things go, it would be the equivilent as killing off the population and enforce the practice of more birth control methods. Also, enforce death penalty. Instead of "nuking somewhere else" or randomly killing off a populationg because that just destroys nature and makes the land inhospitable, therefore, not helping anybody, not even the animals or the ozone.
Or we could just deal with it because we are all going to die faster eventually being that we are way over our carrying capacity in the world. Scientists can't keep up with new diseases forever.

 

First off, the idea of space travel to another abet to live on is utterly ridiculous at this point in time. Not only is mass space travel not yet been safely accomplished, even if we did figure it outthe amount of resources we would have to make to build such a thing would likely result in a giant open massive wound on the planet, with every raw material and fuel needed stripped away and manufactured. The world would likely not survive such a thing in the sense that the Earth we know now wouldn't be anything like the Earth after stripping past it's surface and leaving it as such. And you forget that we have yet to find a planet close enough for us to travel to where we could properly survive. And furthermore instead of stopping the problem of us using too many resources, exploiting the planet, etc, you're saying that we should strip bare another planet we would travel to, which is horrible to think about.

 

It doesn't matter what we do. We're all gonna die eventually. Also, space travel isn't really safe, and there aren't any planets we could live on. What planets are you speaking about, boy?

 

Okay . . . so when did this become about space travel and Peace-and-War . . . when did I ever say anything about stripping down this or any other planet? My whole post was about how we need to save the planet . . . the last few lines specifically. Besides, if you knew me you would know everything I say is crazy (or at the least hypothetical) I mean once you saw the space thing did you even take the time to read what I said about the actual conversation? I said killing the humans should be a last resort if we can't find another means to save ourselves. Space travel is one of those means that at least deserves some looking into.

 

Well, there really is no need to kill ourselves, we're gonna die one way or another. It's kinda like a soldier killing himself before going out to the battlefield. I say we should enjoy life as long as we can without worrying about the planet dying.

 

I dislike that comparison. Not only is a battlefield not always a suicide mission, but you do not go out to die, you go out to kill. I respect a man who kills himself before he goes to war.

 

In this situation, space travel is one of the least likely plans that we'd implement because it wouldn't solve anything for the humans or this planet. Killing ourselves would work out better for the planet than us trying to use the planets resources to make travelling arrangements for billions of humans and likely animals, antiques, history, culture monuments, etc that we treasure to a planet we've never set foot on, would take us possibly centuries to get to, colonise it and adapt to the new environment meanwhile trying to sustain our own lives through massive amounts of stored food water and any other nutrient supplements we need.
If the choice were mass suicide or space travel, for most every logical reason to save the planet and not our own lives, it would be for us to die. And if were to save the planet I would likely go willing for the same of earth and it's creatures then just my species. But hopefully something viable can be figured out before we reach that point.

 

You really think we have the money, resources, or time to even do that. Plus we should fix our mess not run away from it.
But really? Space travel is only going to go so far.

 

This is exactly why the earth is the way it is now. "I say we should enjoy life as long as we can without worrying about the planet dying." You are basically saying let the next generation worry about it. That is the type of person in which I despise the most. What would compel you to not worry. Those who show no fear are fools, those who always fear are fools, those who know when to fear and when not to are the only ones who will ever truly accomplish anything.

Okay . . . seriously. Only going to go so far? Look, once we make it to that first step of reaching another habitable planet there is not "only going so far" It won't happen in our lifetime but one day we will reach that mark. I mean honestly if that is all we have to live for is to be stuck on the same planet for ages and ages then what is the point? Our resources are bound and determined to run out at some point anyway. Honestly if we could find a way to inhabit another planet, safely, I think it would be the first step to the long run of human life expanding itself into the reaches of the universe.

 

What do you mean stuck? We're going to die and it won't be our problem. We can do what we can as we are now but all in all it won't mean much unless we can get everyone to contribute. I'm not going to say waste your life in ecstasy and I'm not going to say commit your life to bettering the world but at least attempt to enjoy life while doing something good.

 

You know . . . you make pretty good sense here. I was just stating that I don't care much for people who do live there whole lives in ecstasy, but I wouldn't want everyone to just work and work and work. All work and no play right? Well, you basically summed up the basic concept for me. Work for a better future, but live for today, and learn from yesterday . . . it's out of order but that was close to a quote from Albert Einstein.

 

I doubt pollution will ever eradicate every life form on the planet. There are some life forms that can survive incredibly dire situations : some organisms can survive right over underwater volcanoes, some insects can enter a centuries-long stasis and survive a nuclear holocaust in the meantime, some shrimp eggs can hatch centuries after they were laid if they finally come in contact with water ... there may be a few inaccuracies in what I just said but you get the picture, just because humans interfered with their environment doesn' t change the rules, it' s still the survival of the fittest. We speak of the life-forms that disappeared because of us, but what of the species that have or will appear thanks to the changes we' ve made ? If anything we are just afraid that sooner or later we might not fit in the world as we changed it, we' ve decimated entire species happily and remorselessly from starters. If we were to all die nature would just reclaim the place.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;_NLF3moePdo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLF3moePdo[/video]
See how many plants there are in Tchernobyl 10 years after the nuclear incident ?

I honestly can' t think of a way out, unless ... banning any form of consumer society maybe ? If we only cared for food and shelter it might just work but ... I suspect it' s a cure no one would want, they' d find it worse than the disease.
It' s just like they said in The Matrix, most human beings are so dependent on the system that they' d rather die defending their artificial illusion of happiness than face the gritty truth (including me, and probably you too).

 

Ok I have an idea now of course it is not a happy one but we can start by looking at the worst the world has to offer and slowly removing it. for example here are people in american prisons who will either be in and out their entire lives or never be free just kill them all. then move up the chain of value and remove those who have nothing to offer society and stop once we have taken out the useless ones then look where we are as a society and see if our efforts will help at least slow our decline until a better solution can be made. I am no fan of this idea but if no better option shows itself i will be the first to stand behind it.

Note; by useless I mean people with either terminal diseases or people who are so mentally incompetant that they will never be of any use or so physically unable that they cannot do anything

 

Oh boy, this thread is so depressing. Really ? The scapegoat plan ? Yeah, cause that' s always sooooo clever and efficient. What you' re proposing is mass murder, which is supposed to lead to prison or death penalty, depends which country you live in. Remind me again what you suggested we do with prisoners anyway ?

The only scapegoat plan I might agree with is the one in which the scapegoats are the very people who submitted the plan in the first place.

 

You people are stupid. It is not humans who are destroying the world... but rather the stupid ones. Why would we nuke the world? Thats just stupid. That would destroy more of the world than is already decaying. The best solution is to control rate of birth to get population down. Its slow, but not idiotic. If we simply kill people to save the world, what determines whos evil and not? Sure, at first it would be reasonable, the murderers and rapist would be the first to go if society as a whole decided to take such extreme measures, but then who? Petty thieves? Small time crooks? Ok, there dead, worlds still falling apart... Now who? Jews? Religious Zealots who refuse to renounce thier faith? Gypsies? Under this plan, something has got to give. Hey, you know what, it was tried once in history. Guess who tried it?

> This guy... <

The fact that a few people voted to kill of the world is just sickening. Haven't you people learned from history.

 

You have to be joking right. Just be happy that you have some place to live and instead of being lazy and wanting to throw all of our problems somewhere and then just leave. Actually make an active effort to fix them. No offense but your logic has an unbelievable amount of flaws. You really think we are EVER going to find another planet and actually live there. It won't happen.

 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2022489,00.html

But yes, it' s 20 light years away. Spaceships fast enough to get light years away wouldn' t run on fumes. If we ever want to send a few select people on another viable planet, which is not gonna happen anytime soon, first we' ll have to stop polluting and wasting resources at light-speed. Let' s not even talk of sending an entire population.

People keep thinking, for no apparent reason, that science and technology can save them from anything, including the way they selfishly misuse science and technology to behave like there' s no tomorrow. Surprise, now there really isn' t any tomorrow !

Behold the mighty humans and their brains, the pinnacle of evolution, the perfect creation of God ! We are SO intelligent ! :=D:
Yeah right, so intelligent that we' re drowning in our own poop, hoping some more poop might save us. We could have thought of NOT eating ten times more than required, but that' s just ******ed, as opposed to, you know, drowning in our own poop ...

 

oh joy ladies and gentlemen we have a cynic who is so uncreative he tears others ideas down without any contribution. At least I came up with an idea, and i suggested we remove those who slow us down, now if you can prove to me that those lessers I named do not slow progress then I will have a different opinion. And destroying our prisoners why not? they are valueless and a drain on resources so what is their value again? and like I said it isn't a permanent solution it's to buy time and if valueless wastes of space can buy us time then I say let them.

 

Do you have any sense of moral value what so ever? That is just cold and bitter.

 

they had to have done something to end up in prison in the first place so they have no need to have any morals directed at them