This is my solution for saving planet Earth, please read this, I know its long and tell me what you think?

Question

Dr. Pianka’s talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. The bulk of his talk was that he’s waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He’s basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.

Humans are far too populous. We’ve used up our resources, and we’re destroying the Earth at an accelerated pace. The more technology we create, the more damage we’re capable of doing. We now consider keeping the forest natural to save a species of catepillar more important that using that space for humans to live and till. And I’m in complete agreement with that. It’s the harsh reality that many people alive right now should be dead. And even harsher to think that the world would be better off with them dead too. Or think of all the babies being born every hour with abnormalities that 50 years ago would have kept them from living. Now, those lives can be saved, and we pat ourselves on the backs at how smart and charitable we are as a species that we can create and sustain life. Life has a built-in mechanism that keeps species from becoming too overpopulated, and it wasn’t until humans started messing with the system that it went out of whack. Now that we’ve killed off the majority of all top predators, we now must take on the duty of keeping populations in check and at the same time, allowing other species a fair chance at reproduction.

It wouldn’t have been so bad 15-20 years ago when we reached that threshold of sustainability if we as humans would have learned to control our population size then. But instead, we saw the Earth’s resources as unlimited and our authority over them exclusive, and we continued to reproduce when we should’ve stop. Dr. Pianka made a very profound comment during his presentation; he said that China has the right idea by limiting reproduction at 1. We’re past the point of replacement reproduction as a species. We’re too many for the number we’re at now! We need to decline in population. A virus is probably the fairest method of extermination (though still not completely fair, I admit) because it’s nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets. Rich, poor, black, white, brown, nice, mean, religious, agnostic - we’d all be targeted equally.

It’d be nice if humans could learn to manage our population as successively as we’ve learned to manage the population of literally every other species on this planet with whom we share. We’re very skilled when it comes to killing off deer, snakes, rabbits, and fish for population control. But we’re a stupid species when it comes to managing ourselves. An insightful observation was made during the talk that education should be the key to learning how to take care of the Earth, but the problem is that the educated have fewer children and the uneducated have many children. So eventually, the uneducated will take over the Earth. It may have already happened.

Answer 1

We already have a solution - God.

Answer 2

Wow you have stated alot of radical ideas I don't know where to start.

First off you say a virus is not a completely fair way to kill off the population because it is nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets. How would you make it more fair? I.e. who would you target the virus on? Rich, black, white, brown, nice, mean etc? Should we kill off all the uneducated people because they were born into such miserable poverty they could not afford to go to school? How are we to decide who should die for the "greater good"?

You say China had the right idea of limiting the reproduction at 1? How many Chinese baby girls were murdered I wonder because of that policy?

Perhaps it would be better if all the humans were wiped out so that another more intelligent life form could evolve? It has happened before.

Yes humans are destroying the very planet that supports them. I rekon in another 100 - 200 years it would not be worth living on. But by then I will be dead and so don't care too much (and I don't have any children either). Right now we are at the peak of human evolution and have a lifestyle no species in the history of this planet has ever had it so good. Enjoy it while you can.

Answer 3

i don't agree with ANYTHING that you've said. We have made nice technological advances, and that in turn has given us many things, and yes, the ability to transform people who might've died, and given them a chance.

So, what are you saying? That if this does happen, you're gonna be one of the 10% that lives? Even if it has NO discriminatory factors? Think again buddy. If that virus were to EVER become of something, we'd all be wiped - hell, that would be worse than Anthrax, or all those other diseases we've faced in the past, and the present.

And, in china, where they stop production at 1? Think again. It's not that way anymore. Women are PEOPLE now, so, they don't get killed just cause they "value" the boy over them, cause they can work and do more than the family. Hell, look at the population over there for cryin out loud! And you think we're over freakin populated??!?!?!? i think not.

Education IS the key - and if you look, it's already going on. We have made far more advances in the past 2 decades alone. We're now looking at wind power and saving gas, or depleating it all together. Uneducated people will not take over the earth - well, maybe a couple will become president :P lol.

So, i think you're being just a little too extreme - and if it was to happen, then so be it. Everything else is doing the planet in, so, why not have a virus?

Answer 4

I agree with many of your points, as you will see if you look at my answered questions, which include a very recent one specifically about population growth. I was nodding my head while reading much of what you wrote.

I must say, however, that I find the idea of *purposely* releasing a virus to get things back in check abhorrent. As serious as the problem is, and will become, I find that solution way too radical for the far-forseeable future!

Also I found myself a little disoriented, right off the bat, as you began your composition, "Dr. Pianka’s talk at the TAS meeting...," leaving me wondering who in the world this person was and what TAS stands for!

For the good of everyone (though there would certainly be intense controversy) I also have long advocated the limiting of children born to a given couple, though I'm not sure if I'd set the number at 1. Two was more in line with my thinking, though I do understand your reasoning. I'm not even sure I'd set an absolute LIMIT, but am more fond of the idea of some kind of tax for those who exceed said limit... perhaps an amount of money which goes toward food production research, community planning, space exploration, or some other solution-oriented organization which would address some aspect of the global population problem, and help to sustain that extra child, and replenish his/her environmental cost to the earth, somehow.

All in all, a thoughtful piece. I will re-read it at another time.

Hopefully we can find a solution to the problem that *doesn't* involve a natural disaster of epic proportions (which I, too, wrote about)... or something akin to genocide!

Answer 5

Dr. Pianka (whoever he is??) is HOPING for a virus to wipe out 90% of the population? Hmmm...

I think if we overpopulate to an extreme degree, there will be forces that will keep us in check, including disease, war over shrinking resources, famine, etc.

I agree, we have reproduced to an alarming degree, and medical science does not help matters by prolonging lives (not that prolonging lives is not a good thing, but it must be balanced out by a decrease in birth rate).

I wonder if even though the numbers of uneducated may be increasing more, the survival rates of the uneducated might be lower because of their ignorance. What it boils own to is survival of the fittest--fitness being physical as well as mental (intelligence).

I think at some point we might have to legislate limits on reproduction to insure survival of our species and the survival of the rest of the living world. It won't be popular, but it will be necessary.

Answer 6

I think I understand what your saying..... In order to keep the earths population down you'd like to leave all the sick to just die instead of helping them.... You'd like to be the person who creates this virus I think (maybe modify it somehow to only affect the lower class). It's people like you, who would actually think about letting others go to their death-without trying to save them that have the world in the state it's in! With all the hate and war... I can see that your educated, but education does not mean that you are more welcomed on this earth than those that are less fortunate... Who the hell do you think you are? You are no better than those who are living out of shopping carts! Just think about what you're saying! I have no more time left for you, I'm so disgusted that you would even consider this as the right thing for US! If I've read this wrong, then I apologize.... If not, go for long walk off a short bridge.

Answer 7

i say we just continuouly kill dumb people that only bring society down and have nothing to contribute. such as old and senial people, rednecks, and others that only use resources. and spread wealth equally so everyone can prove themselves. do the true comunist way with no curruption and the world will be great. but that itself cannot happen because of people greed. humans will grow and grow untill we kill the planet. we will all die and i am just glad im not a human. im from westside mars baby. straight up.. hahah

Answer 8

So does your solution involve you being in the 10%?

Well if not I was just reading another question about self-immolation and if you don't feel that the gallon or so of burning gasoline would be too great a detriment by adding to the global warming crisis perhaps you may wish to initiate the depopulation process you have proposed by committing yourself in that direction.

Answer 9

90% of the people in the world means 90% of your family, friends and relatives.
If you wish your beloved die to have a better life, you are not a human anymore. And if you are not a human leave it to human to solve the problems.

Answer 10

What are you saving the planet Earth from, exactly? This Earth has withstood 4.5 billion years of continual evolution, nuclear storms, multiple ice ages, eons of rule by the dinosaurs, drastic climate changes... Do you actually think that we humans are gonna destroy it with our puny technology? From your essay, its more like you're looking for a solution to save the human race, NOT planet Earth.

Answer 11

Thats why once in a while, we need wars, virus attacks, homicides, etc to control our population.