this is a 'magic' button - instantly 3 out of 4 people would disappear (regardless of class, age, race, location, etc - could be your friends and family - across the board ) there would be no corpses, but for all intents and purposes the 3/4 would be dead.
The population reduction would however ensure the survival of the planet, eliminate war, poverty and hunger, end man's erosion and destruction of the environment and reduce our overall ecological footprint.
would you do it?
2007-03-23 06:06:05 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Your question is predicated on the notion that all that's needed to 'ensure the survival of the planet, eliminate war, poverty and hunger, end man's erosion and destruction of the environment and reduce our overall ecological footprint' is to take us back from over six to under two billion people. I suspect that's very erroneous.
As far as I'm aware, Earth's population was around 2bn not much more than 50 years ago, and things were no paradise then, ecologically or otherwise. At best we'd be back where we are before this century is out.
I suspect that underlying your question is an unexamined buy-in to the popular idea that the current ecological damage - such as it is - can only be reversed if humans reduce their eco-footprint, chiefly by denying themselves in some way and retreating to a non-technological, mediaeval existence.
This ignores the high probability that eco problem has a technological solution: iron-salting of the oceans to boost algal growth, sequestration of CO2 in deep ocean trenches, a switch to non-polluting power sources - especially fusion when it finally becomes viable, GM crops that can thrive in arid regions, and so on. All of these are in various stages of development, and could, mutatis mutandis, feed and irrigate the planet successfully.
Note that I don't have any problem with reducing the population. I'm appalled that in various countries where the population growth is falling, the main government concern is to protect social security and tax schemes - which are effectively pyramid selling schemes that only work if the population increases steadily.
I think in particular that it would be very beneficial to society if we could magically eliminate the portion of the world's population who are unplanned and unwanted births, and whose parents are unable to feed and clothe them. Disgustingly, the organisations that address these issues are often geared to promote the exact opposite: aid that is conditional on a reduction in abortion and contraceptive use.
As your question concerns personal attitudes: I'm happy to ignore the planet's current problems. I didn't create them; I'm not responsible for fixing them; I have no investment in the future, and I'll soon be out of the picture. You guys carry on without me.
CD
2007-03-23 07:08:32 · answer #1 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
that sort of magic button would not be very wise, because some of the part that is destroying our planet is the individules, so if you pushed the buton, perhaps alll the good people, the geinuses, the caring, loving people that do so much for our culture and planet,dissapeared? only the slobs and the murderers and the delinquents would live on the planet. I think the sort of button that shuold be pushed is the button that reduces the population growth. The huan race would not dissapear, but every person on the planet have les babies. perhaps, even, the slobs and the murderers and the delinquents will have less babies anfd the geniuses and the caring, loving people who would do so much for this culture and our planet have more babies, making the population of planet Earth more intelligent and caring. that would be the sort of button to push.
2007-03-23 07:27:22 · answer #2 · answered by Moonlight Rose 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because there is always a knock-on effect when you unnaturally and drastically alter the size or make up of a population. Even the vilest creatures in the eco-system are needed to create balance within it.
If you eliminate the 3 people needed to effect what you have outlined, who knows what the unintended consequence might be. Could be that in trying to save earth, we alter the future of man in another way e.g. a narrower gene pool that can create adverse physiological changes to humans, for example.
2007-03-23 06:36:33 · answer #3 · answered by boston857 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. There will be wars and rumors of wars until the end of time, but these are just like the first pains of child birth. The real bang will be when there is a one world govenerment. Big Brother will control your every move. You will all be prisoners without a cell. Do you want to be watched 24/7 and told what to think, feel and do every day of your life. Freedom is not free!
2007-03-23 06:43:20 · answer #4 · answered by meekail_rebrol 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would hit it repeatedly. I would not stop until I disappeared.
Why? I want to see what happens when the human population is 1, and the button removes 3/4. Assuming I'm the last person, would I then disappear or not?
2007-03-23 06:08:55 · answer #5 · answered by Vegan 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. What if I reduced myself out of existence? Then, how would I enjoy the sparsely populated planet? What if I reduced all of my friends and loved ones out of existence, (leaving 1 of every 4 people) which coincidentally is all of the people that I cannot stand? Then, I am stuck on this sparsely populated and green planet with some very annoying people!
2007-03-23 06:09:55 · answer #6 · answered by Shibi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, even though I don't like most people :). Eliminating 3/4 of the population does not mean the remaining 1/4 will get along, live peacefully or cooperate, not nuke eachother, etc. Also, we are not going to destroy the planet, only ourselves. Earth will be fine without us.
2007-03-23 06:12:08 · answer #7 · answered by Peppermint Girl 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all, the planet doesn't need saving. It was here long before we showed up and will be here long after we're gone.
Secondly, a reduction in population in itself wouldn't eliminate any problems that we couldn't handle with our current population (if the political will to do so existed).
2007-03-23 06:12:46 · answer #8 · answered by Todd W 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is really a difficult question to answer. I wouldn't want to get rid of my relatives and I'm sure no one else would want to either - so I guess, no one would push the button.
2007-03-23 08:28:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You failed to explain how this would ensure the survival of the planet. First of all 75% of the earths surface is NOT overpopulated. Maybe you should have just said that we could do this in North America and Asia only??
As it is written...this question makes no sense.
2007-03-23 06:14:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋