Offensive Question: Great Culling?

Question

I'm being very serious on this:
We are over populating this plant, so wouldn’t it be in the best interest for future generations to cull some of the current generation, set a mandatory age limit 80 or something like that. Or create mandatory birth control or sterilize certain people upon birth to insure we don’t continue to over populate and deplete our resources.

It might not be moral, but lets put morals aside and think realistic, we are are over populating.

I’m very serious and ask you to think about this too, what’s you opinion, look at the Asian countries, they already have child limit laws, should they be world wide.

I meant planet, not plant sorry about the little typo

Answer 1

Sadly, this is our reality. Over population is one of the biggest threats that face humanity in the years to come. I saw a POPclock that estimated the world's population would be over 10 billion by 2030, that's insane. Right now we're at 6.5 billion.

What I think will end up happening is there will be resource wars and lots of people will die that way. Peak oil is only one thing to consider, the real problems will come with clean water, livable land space, forestry, etc. We face a bloody future, so there's no need to start now. If history has shown us anything, things have a way of evening themselves out. A nuke or two later and we'll be back to where we started.

Answer 2

You could achieve a huge reduction simply by making fertility a normally-off condition.

That way, people would *decide* when to have kids, instead of it happening to them.

Most governments, however, are upset about the generally declining Western birth rate, because the tax system in most countries is a giant pyramid-selling scheme, and only works if the population continually increases.

I'm glad I'm out of that one.

CD

Answer 3

I'd say that to kill someone because they are 80 is NEVER EVER ok but if population got as bad as you're making out it is then
1st step build more high rise buildings
2nd step - limit on children per family - similar to the law in China except with less killing of infant daughters.
3rd step - colonise the deserts and sea bed and other unused land masses. (not that I want more space being used in this way but it HAS to be better for civilisation than culling)
4th step - make housing on the sea / create islands.
5th step - build space stations.

There are alot of options before killing, its quite the leap you have taken there. And we are not overpopulated we simply do not have enough people providing the basics for living so that it seems like we are getting shorter on food etc but actually more people are becoming accountants and driving instructors than farmers.

One thing i would want to see if that parent living on the benefit system are penalised for having more and more kids. I think all too often now, kids are like living welfare cheques for their bum parents.

Answer 4

Sure.
But why begin with the aged? Heck, Mother Nature will take them out of the way soon enough, don't you think?
I say we begin with snarky, smart-alecky kids who think they have the answers to all the world's problems.
Think how peaceful the world would be if we could just rid the world of these people...we all know they are never going to mature and be useful members of society anyway...too spoiled and too used to having their own way.
Let 'em get to, say, 25, and if they haven't learned any decent manners by then, they gotta go!

And there would be so much more room for the meek to inherit, once we got rid of all these arrogant egotistical drains on our society!

Yep, I agree, so long as we begin with you!!

Answer 5

Yeah, easy there, Hitler. Some people may not be "fit for life", but none of us are in a position to determine who those people may be. Some of the people that appeared destined for worthlessness have made the biggest contributions in history. It's a major issue, but there are better answers (i.e. make agricultural practices more efficient and stretch the natural resources we have). Nature will take care of the problem on its own, if we only give it time.

Answer 6

i'm particularly indignant by way of your way of questioning… each thing you ask is rather tousled. reformatory/penal equipment have been set as much as punish undesirable habit, to actual a incorrect. I don’t have self assurance they ought to have issues that some unfastened electorate might evaluate luxuries. yet tagging all of them with a loss of existence verdict isn't a typical or healthful way of questioning. And to your recommendations on disabled human beings… i will in basic terms pray you exchange into one. Do you no longer think of disabled human beings have emotions? Do you no longer think of that they have got brains? Do you no longer think of they have nerves? OMG i ought to circulate on perpetually… the place interior the international did you strengthen this type of questioning? How can a individual answer your question without showing some style of disgust in direction of you and your question? useful?!?!? useful!!!!

Answer 7

No.

If you do this, people should agree to be sterilized. You do not want to make such an important decision for someone when they don't know what is going on.

But yes, there should be child limit laws. Like, per say, at most 3 kids.

And no, do NOT kill older people!

Answer 8

Soylent Green

Answer 9

So who would decide who stays and who goes? You mentioned an age limit of 80. Then what, euthanasia? This is a dangerous road to travel.

Answer 10

Great idea, you first.

Proverbs 15:14
The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.