Killing off the humans

I read the page LONG before I had to deal with THIS. Case Closed.
And the thing is: No, c'mon. Gimme a break. I just was suggesting. STOP going against me. Again, case closed. No more dealing with this.

 

You're fine with it but you don't like it? What the what?
Also, I hope you realize that solutions in fiction can't blindly be extrapolated to reality. If you'd want such solutions to work, you'd have to apply them to a large scale (global or at the very least continental). Even if any single country would take such drastic measures, the impact would be comparable to using a teardrop to douse a brushfire, and that's without even mentioning the "grass is always greener" realization that will almost certainly play a part in it.

I could have sworn this place was called Debate Corner...

 

I said, case closed. No more arguing about that post.

 

There is no case closed. If you cannot defend your suggestions, then do not post them.

The case is closed when we either accept or reject your suggestion. Not before then.

 

Guys please, we can have a debate without it turning heated.

Adding onto the idea of limiting the amount of children to be had, China had a practice like this. In China, there exists a Government Mandate that states for urban, married families the maximum children they can have is 1. The families can petition for a second child if the first is physically/mentally disabled or a girl. Another child without the government's approval results in large fines and a possible denial of bonuses at work.. This has led to a disproportionate gender population as female children, to bypass the One Child policy, are effectively abandoned or outright killed and then buried in secret.

The Chinese did this for a number of reasons but mostly because of economic, social, and environmental problems. We know how large a population China has which I think is somewhere around 1339,7 million. Mao did encourage a large population and afterwards, it came back to bite them in the rear.

Here's some further information if you're interested.

Just wanted to provide an example of how population control has been attempted.

 

While this post was more coherent, it is redundant. Both China's case and that link have been posted already.

flowergothic is refusing to defend her point regardless.

 

Which is proof that the debate is going nowhere. If flowergothic does not wish to continue to debate something, it's because she realized that. It was a bad argument, as there was no backing of it, it was simply an idea that went nowhere. She, and we saw that.
Now for once, let it go.

 

As harsh as it may sound, if you make a statement (especially in the Discussion section) you'd better be ready to defend it. Without defending your argument you are effectively saying that you don't believe in your opinion, and as such is invalid. Just put a bit of thought and time in your argument and we'll have a well rounded discussion about it.

Makaze can also be harshly blunt and unsympathetic when it comes to people who don't answer his questions fully. So don't worry, just expand when you can.

 

I don't think I need to repeat what's been said:

I think these two summed it up fairly well. Let's be a little more mature in debates.

For a better understanding on how to behave in the debate corner, there are rules specifically made for it. No one is exempt from the rules. I suggest you all read them if you're not sure on how to act in the Debate Corner.

 

How is quoting them not repeating what they said? This is self-contradicting.

This goes for both sides. Siding with the least mature of the two parties does not help your case.

 

He never specified who were right or wrong. He pointed at the fact that you were both immature. Flowergothic for coming with an input without any backing for it. You for believing that the debate ends when you say so.

 

Okay guys, please keep this on topic or I have to close it or delete a ton of posts.

Thank you

 

You don't need to do that, we are already doing it to our selfs, male infertility coz of estrogen hormones, endometriosis (female illness that causes infertility), and all that, and the best part is, unlike a nuke this will not kill anything else
I mean it's all very well to kill off humans to save the planet, but if you destroy all the animals and trees in the process it loses the whole point.

My own idea is to have city's in the sky and the ground as a nature reserve, if they can make flying cars that's only a step away from a flying city! Humans living in the sky, plants and animals living on the ground. That way you have beautiful wildlife and urban jungles without them harming each other. It would be so cool! Go to sleep in Spain wake up in New Zealand. The only sad thing is for people who are afraid of heights, ironically that includes me.

And now that we are on topic again let us continue this debate

 

That's what they did in Armored Core: For Answer. Personally I think that's a great idea, but it wouldn't work in reality. If we can't even get a car to move for more than a lil while, then how can we move entire cities forever constantly? That and abandoning the Earth is not something I could do. What we need to do is branch out into Space. The Moon is the logical first step as we've been there already, and then Mars and beyond. I believe, with technology moving as fast as it is, I can easily believe we will see a Man on Mars and a Lunar colony begin contruction in our lifetimes.

 

Personally i believe that you are all too naive to accomplish what you discuss as are most people. there are very few of the people in this discussion that have any impact because all you discuss are ineffective idea's that you can't put into practice. Things like "Sky Cites" and "Colonize the Moon" are about as practical as saying cross into a dimension where thought has precedence. Let the world change one discovery at a time. Many have tried to make radical changes and failed, let the world change one step at a time besides wanting to instantly change for supposed "good". The environment has survived this long, by all logic we should've been killed along time ago from catastrophe after catastrophe but we haven't that is the key thing people cease to understand anymore. The world is alive now and it will alive for millennia after 2012 not because if some radical changes are the extinction of mankind, but because it was designed to outlast and best everything an ignorant species can throw at it.

 

If we kill most humans in the planet, most would be pretty mad if loose someone they love is the first thing, this can bring war. Secondly, you could be included in the "most part", so this isn't a selfish solution this is stupidity.

And most obvious. We're trying to save the planet, but a planet without live beings would be what? This is my opinion though.

 

I did not say to do it because we needed to do it. There are no such things as needs.

I feel that stopping individuals from creating life is a goal in itself. It has the fortunate side effect of discontinuing the species, but that is not my primary incentive. To be blunt, I am not in it for the planet or for mankind, but for individuals. Eliminating the species violently would bring more harm to more individuals than not doing so, while infertilizing the species would bring harm to fewer individuals than not doing so. It is the logical option.

 

To be quite frank, I think it sounds ridicilous that people would first consider populating odd places on earth before even considering what can be done to lower the birthrate.

Though this might be a very idealistic suggestion, better information about health care and protection (and of course access to such things) would ultimately lower the birthrate. Though this would not solve the problem of over population, it would definitely limit it. Though I don't think I'm bringing great insight here, I did think this would be something rather obvious state over other stuff like starting to kill off people or live on the moon, no offense.

 

This seems like a very naive post. I think as long as Humans will exist with their ability to think and execute as we can Earth is going to suffer from it. Killing a few thousands of people in Africa isn't going to save the planet, that's a stupid idea imo. If we were to kill the people there we would not only commit a huge mass murder but we would probably inhabit that area aswell. The problem isn't people in africa, the problem is people with power. Power which they did not gain naturally but through our intelligence. Because of this power and the natural selfishness of people, we corrupt and destroy what nature and evolution has built up for millions of years. Therefore we should try to conserve as much as possible without interfering with our living standards, because no one would accept that in our self-centered society. And i'm not criticizing the mindset most people have, as it is their natural way of life.