That's the question, do you think there will less war , less famine and a more productive and progressive human race if there were drastically less people?
Defintlely the world would be better off with less people. America would be better off with less people. In fact when the Progressives conducted the most scientific study ever conducted on immigration, (Dillingham Commission) and they reported to Congress that America's population should be capped at 160 million. Congress totally agreed but never made it law. In my lifetime I've watched the population of the United States more than double, the population of California almost quadruple and the worlds's population more than double from 3 billion to 7 billion and the scariest of them all, I remember when the sign over McDonalds golden arches that read, "Over 500,000 Served."
That's what built America and use to be what America use to be all about before cultural-marxism. Individualism, freedom of choice without government intervention, "Manifest Destiny."
I am not sure that referencing the Dillingham commission is such a good thing. When you have a term in the research community named after your flaws processes and thinking, it is not a good sign.
Yes and that's an objective fact. That said, genocide is bad. I'm all for a voluntary sterilization/eugenics program to resolve the issue in a civilized manner.
One thing's for sure - the world would be FAR better off if there were fewer Republicans. They need to convert to FDR's New Dealism (an idea that, ironically enough, began with the Republicans) and the world will be better for it.
But Dillingham and the commission were progressives who used science to fix the ills of society. So how successfull have progressives been in America so far ? For one thing todays progressives no longer use science, they just want change and just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up hoping someday they might get it right. Now back during America's progressive era the progressives used science to prove that some races or ethnicities were superior to others. That's the true and original definition of racism. Today's progressives still believe some races and or ethnicities are still inferior and that they can't compete in society with out a lot of help like free stuff from the government. Now there's nothing flawed about the Dillingham Commissions findings, hey they used science. But there were some European ethnicities who did get their feelings hurt and did yell that the study was bias. Since the Dillingham Commission findings are 42 volumes, it's a lot of reading but it is considered the largest and most comprehensive study in history on immigration, it covered every race and ethnicity in the world. It's a good read. You can read one volume here -> http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/dillingham.html
less people is not always good under-population is bad for society over-population is bad for society the people complaining loudest about over-population often seem to be the ones against birth control and abortion... ironically
I'm past the age of making babies, and I never made them. I too am all for voluntary eugenics. I believe that we, as a society, should track the civil progress of each student in school, from age 5 to 18. Upon reaching 18, we should all be graded as to our suitability to reproduce. Only in this way can we put an end to poverty and welfare, along with so many other social ills. I don't think that's unfair. If a child is raised by people who teach him to be a criminal, or a spouse abuser, or a pedophile or jail bird, that's what he's been prepared to teach his children. If we don't let that happen, the unborn generation is spared the grief of living that way, and society is spared the ballast of dealing with it.
Spineless forum ! The worlds elite talk about killing 75% of the population for real. We cannot get a discussion on this forum about it? Right now these powers are orchestrating the killing of Arabs, next it will be? And how? The bird flu, mad cow and other diseases have been tossed around but won't do it without killing some of the builderburgs own agents so we go back to war and famine with some climate controls. War is the fastest way and culpability is on the terrorist for now. Things are going splendidly. Can't wait for war in EUs cities when the terror will be bombings with no way to pin the culprit fully, to easy for the EOD investigators to build duplicates to whatever the terrorists use to tell who did what. It will be down right explosive where ever a crowd gathers. So many ways to control and cull the herd. What will be next?
Or We will cull our own herd, mankind is not evolved enough to stop killing each other and live in peace. If we spent as much effort on curing diseases, education and ending poverty as we spend on finding new and better ways to kill each other the world would be a far far better place, I do not ever see that happening so the odds are either one or both of what you and I stated will become the eventual outcome, I do not envy those that follow us we will not leave them a better world.
If only we could rid the world of all the stupid little people.... Utopia... What is the max population of Earth? I would say it doesn't have one. Then again, I'm not for killing babys, old people, or prisoners, just because they are inconvenient, but I know Gazis (global socialist) are. Who decides who lives and who dies? A Death panel?
Have you ever studied history? In the past when the world population was the 25% of the present one, wars were common, famine was common, discrimination and slavery were even legal ... Of you reduce by a good 75% the world population you would go back to ... the middle of XIX century ... a period of global wars, wide migrations, famine ...
It all depends on what you mean by better. Fewer people will not change human nature. Just think back to when there were fewer people. Were there fewer wars? Did people treat each other with more respect? Were people more tollerant of the differences in others? ( I don't thtink so)
Well yes. Technology has progressed in farming or fishing to feed the reduced population. But technology also made it easy to bomb poppy fields or corn fields half way around the globe. War will come and war will come if you have something worth stealing. So many industrialized people need the oil energy stored right where the war and famine is. Yemen has still got oil and that is what the fight is for. Yemen happens to be out of drinking water and is not human sustainable at current 25 million population. Reduce the population to sustainable and control the oil resources with hi-technology low human soldier war. Same thing is going on in Syria.
not sure about 75% less, but I think we as a world are over-populated, like others have said, I think at some point nature will take care of that with a plague of some type course when that happens the religious fanatics will take over for a time thinking God is upset and it's their job to make him happy again, they will blame it on science, gays, education, you name it .
With 75% fewer people to sell your wares to, I think people are going to be working a lot harder than they realize to survive.
even if you eliminated 75% of humans, there is nothing to show that it would affect war, famine, productivity, or any progress... it would simply be less people... depending how you identify and measure productivity rates, americans even with all the lazyness, are far more productive than they were with a much smaller population... so productivity gains don't seem to be tied exclusively to population size, participation, etc etc... and then to slightly touch on the elimination of the "poorest" would not necessarily boost productivity... there are plenty of poor people who are exceptionally productive in physical labor that so far we have not been able to replace with knowledge or technology (usually due to cost of that), so if we remove them from the picture, the others in the ladder will become less productive as someone will have to do those tasks in order for the others to be more productive... there are so many ways to sound good saying this, but population alone does not overall altar the stats... just shrinks the demand to be in line with the new size...
This is possibly the most idiotic thread I've seen on here yet. 75% variation in anything, plus or minus,and we are absolutely screwed. What makes societies miserable to live in is change and lots of it. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse reserved for your worst enemy in China We think change is good, but that's only because we have ethics/morals that goes out of its way to manage change so it's for the best, rather than just change. We've had two systems in the last century that thought change itself was just peachy no matter what, real winners weren't they? Don't we have rules about calling for genocide anyway?
