Killing off the humans

I have heard many ways to save the earth and the most inserting way is to kill most of the human population. I know its wrong and probably the most selfish way possible but i have to agree with the theory. With too many humans running around they create a lot of CO2 causing ozone to breakdown and with too many humans the ratio between us and trees becomes dangerous low. Also as humans we like to take up a lot of useless leaving no room for trees to grow.
to sum everything we are killing the planet.

 

This thread is probably about the most controversial thing on the site right now, but while killing people probably isn't going to be practical, this is sort of true. The planet is suffering from over-population, but since the blame can't exactly be pinned down to individuals, it wouldn't be right for anybody to be killed for it.
What does need to be done is heavy research into living in different places to just Earth's landmasses; be that in domes under the ocean, space colonies, terraforming Mars, whatever. As far-fetched as it may sound; it's likely the only way humanity as a species is going to survive past a few hundred more years, and if we wait until then it would be too late.
Voted 'No' on the poll simply because individuals can't be punished for a collective problem.

 

Your statement is ignorant and your state of mind is the easy way out. It isn't Human existence that is the problem, it is the manner in which society and the culture of humanity operates. If anything Africa is the one country which should survive. What, do you think America would be the better option to survive over the rest of the world? If so you are sadly mistaken. Africa lives within its means, and while their maybe a giant population it doesn't expend resources, it doesn't go beyond it's means and it doesn't have redundant bureaucracies and democracies that are exploited by the general populous.

If you are going support human extinction the least you could do is understand that the first nation to be destroyed should be America, then followed by Mainland Europe. Those are the area's that are using up resources and damaging earth, not Africa, which is a developing nation exploited by many, both in resources and as a scapegoat for theories like yours. Humanity has been raised to believe you need to take what you want, when its supposed to be that you take what you need. This selfish attitude towards resources drives nations to war over them simply out of some self-righteous belief that their country is the greatest in the world. If you change this way of thinking than the world will benefit through humanity, not be hindered by it.

 

I agree with DarkTraitor, no fingers should be pointed at people, no individuals should take the blame for our entire mistake. Yes, we are very over populated but that is the only way in my mind that I can justify natural disasters like hurricanes and floods- they are horrible and tragic, and I don't wish anyone to suffer this much but they sort of help with the over population crisis.

However, I would rather find a solution like find ways to live in the sir or on other planets rather then killing people off. Especially pointing a finger at Africa seems a bit harsh, there are probably loads of people in that country that will benefit this world positively and to 'get rid of them' would be depriving the world of that, Africans are no less human than us so we have no place to judge.

Yes, we humans can be greedy and selfish but we do have good within us and we should use that to build a better world and not wish people dead.

 

i had a university professor once who said

"Humans will never be able to destroy the planet, they'll just wreck it enough so humans can't live on it anymore"

 

Africa isn't a country.

Anyway, I'd have to disagree. Much as I hate humans in general, no matter what place we decide to nuke, there are bound to be at least a few people among all those senseless humans. People are rare enough as it is, so randomly nuking a country or group of countries would not be the way to go.

 

Yeah good strategy, then what happens when another country says we're useless and should be "taken care of" to save the planet. We would eventually end up destroying everyone AND the world, not the end result you're looking for.

Regardless of your stance on how we got this world, it's our own fault for messing it up. We can't just kill innocent people though, because in worldly retrospect nobody would be innocent. Instead of blaming others just do your part to help protect Earth, cliché yes, but if everyone lived like that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

I hope to god this is a joke thread, because inaccuracy? You've got it.
First of all, CO2 didn't cause the ozone layer to break down, it's quite the opposite, it makes it thicker. Also, humans have nothing to do with it, but that's a different story.
Africa is not a country, but a continent.
They don't do anything but war? They probably have more legitimate reasons to war than the US does.

If you believe they should die, and use "they don't do anything for us" as a reason, you are just a bad person. That's not a matter of debate, if you value someone elses life less than your own due to the fact that they were born in unfortunate circumstances, you're just a bad person.


And it's not because I don't see the logic in it. It just is a ******ed way of thinking.

 

False premises everywhere.

I would not kill them. I would infertilize them. All of them.

And I would not do it to save the world. I would do it for many reasons, not the last of which being a lack of belief in a person's 'right' to bring someone into the world when that person had no choice in the matter. The results are the same and without bloodshed. Doing this would not only end the majority of the human race, but it would put a damper on fighting. After all, every single death would be one less person. No one would be coming up to replace them. How many people could kill another human if they became a very endangered species? Far fewer, I would think... People would focus on the now, their lives, their lifetimes. I am interested in seeing what would happen in such a case.

 

What would be the purpose of the world without humans?

 

Instead of killing off the human population, we should work on ways to resolve any current issues that there are by doing research.

No individuals are to blame; plus, it's not humans' fault that CO2 is released when breathing -- it's just the way humans were made.

 

This implies that the world has a purpose with humans. Please explain your reasoning.

 

What I take from it is that because the world is so "perfectly" fitting for humans, its purpose is to let humans inhabit it.

 

Without humans the world would be very dull, you can only watch animal planet for so long. We may not be a big help to our world, but at least we make it interesting.

Plus you couldn't have your infertilize experiments otherwise(the only image that come to mind when I think that is a crazed nun kicking people).

 

I could argue against that, but I will let him answer first.

If I were to kill them off while I was still living, that would be true, but making them infertile means that no new people will come into the world, not that those already here would die early.

 

Well, yeah we are clearly beginning to get a little overpopulated.

But killing off people to achieve this goal seems far too unrealistic (as well as ignorant).
Killing others for your own vision, first of all, is a widescale version of survival of the fittest, and I am pretty sure that there's no one really "fit" enough to survive hrough an all out geocide of the human race (accounting for nukes and stuff).

Not to mention that that plan is clearly absolutely immoral. Everyone's life is precious, and taking one away that freely is heartless and cruel. Even more so towards a specific group of people, which would just be pure genocide and nothing more.

As for this, I'm not sure if we really had a purpose to begin with. To me, it seems more like we gave one to ourselves -- and are still trying to figure that out.

 

What I meant by my original post is that Earth is so far the only planet with intelligent life (known to us anyway). You can say this gives it the purpose of being existent in order for us to inhabit. But my point wasn't that Earth has a purpose with humans so much as Earth doesn't really have a purpose without humans either. Sure, we're destroying the planet or whatever, but what is getting rid of what's arguably the most intelligent species on the planet (and even more arguably, the universe) going to do? Make the planet more inhabitable and inhabitable longer for the less intelligent species? I see no point for that. Ignoring all bias as a meat-eating city boy in favor of urbanization, we have the potential brains to use the Earth to its best ability. Sure, we're a speck in the universe and possibly the food chain, but I don't see that as a reason to consider ourselves less important than the others. Hell, I see us as more important simply because of our current evolved status.

And at the idea of making the entire human race infertile, whether or not your point is to kill off all humans, that's the end product unless some way to reproduce is then found. Also, I agree that most people would be like 'oh ****, let's not kill him for stupid reason. We need all the humans we can get!' There's the possibility of some people also being like 'Hey. Let's kill the *enter ethnic/social/religious group of choice here* now. They can't reproduce. We'll be free of them!'

 

I would not do it for the world, as I said. I would do it to satisfy myself, my own interests, and quite possibly the interests of many potential souls who did not make it into this world.

Those groups are few and far between. The extremists would be weeded out quickly.

I would rather very few simply have an immunity and be able to reproduce, and/or create the possibility for immortality, and then neuter the world.

 

A life is a life no matter what. Ever heard of something called a genocide? You can't kill people for no reason and expect other people to take it lightly. Nobody has any right to just decide there are too many people around anyway. It would be more practical to just try to save the planet and scare more people into getting involved. It doesn't matter how many people are on earth as long as they are not knowingly destroying the things you mentioned. That wouldn't solve anything. It would make more problems if anything.

How can you be so ignorant to say this?

 

How stupid can you possibly be. Clearly you have some of the most selfish views I have ever seen. Also if people were going to kill the people who are "useless" why the heck would we nuke them. The problems that nuke would cause would be so negative. Plus why are you playing God? You have absolutely no right to say who should live or die in any situation. Also the racial tension here makes me sick.