Thinning the herd?

Question

If scientists determine that a 40% reduction in the human population is necessary to avoid ecological destruction, what do you think is the fairest way to determine who lives and who dies?

Answer 1

The fairest way is to make having children a privilege, not a right. We have already had to give up a lot of "rights", which were turned into "privileges", such as land development, water use, hunting or fishing, and now atmospheric emissions. If all those things can be regulated, so can having children. We can, for example, use "carbon rights" as a model for regulating childbirth, where only a certain number would be allowed per year, and everybody can either have one, or sell his/her rights to someone else. Right now, the concept seems so horrific to people, who have always believed that having unlimited children is one of the most fundamental God-given rights of mankind, but I trust that it won't be long before the general population realize that overcrowding is running the planet down, and we have no alternative.

Addendum: Judging from all the thumbs down all the answerers are getting, I would say that to even think that population level should be controlled is an, well, unpopular idea.

Answer 2

In Japan, for every extra chiled they were taxed an additional $10,000 yen per kid each year. That's on top of the taxes they already paid. They also placed a social stigma on a woman who had too many kids. Things like, no one would hire her because she's so hard up for money.

Now, Japan is in a population decline. The system worked so well and NO ONE had kids. Now they are trying to reverse that by giving financial rewards for parents who have children.

You really can't have it either way. The problem with trying to control population is that you can't without having an uproar about the infringement on our rights.

Take abortion for example. You could say that this method is a way of reducing the population - whether you think it's right or not is besides the point. However, abortion rights is yet to be determined by law, there are loop holes, and it is always controversial or dangerous.

I think the best way to avoid ecological destruction is for the government to regulate what the consumer can buy. Phase out light bulbs and nothing but CFLs. Allow only recycleable materials. Reward those who recycle and save and tax those who don't. Or something on the lines of that.

However, we would never see this because the government has placed so much red tape on themselves to get anything done, that nothing get's done. The simplest thing takes years to go through.

Picking off people isn't going to work. And even if it did, it's only short term because people will always continue to pop out kids. Not only that but the people of America wouldn't allow their government to kill of any sort of group of people. It would be chaos. What gives humans the right to judge on whether other humans live or die?

Answer 3

I beleive this has already been determined but nobody wants to step up and make it a law...Infact several years ago the United Nations said the maximum sustainable level is 5 Billion - we are currently over 6.5 Billion.

First I would not nessecarily kill anyone - after all if you were born it wasnt your fault for that.. there is always a good number of people who would volunteer to be killed - those suffering in pain because the medical profession wont allow them to die..etc..

ok then I would "Spay and Neuter" most of the rest.. we willingly control the growth of other populations and need to do the same with our own..

if people didnt pass certain qualifications (eg. like dogs at a dog show) they wouldnt be allowed to breed.

I would have 2 types of shows.. you would have to qualify enough points in either type to be allowed to breed.
1. Conformation. Good teeth (no braces), Straight legs, spine, etc, no genetic health issues that will cost the health care system in the future
2. Intelligence. If you are smart enough you can pass on those smart genes to your kids.

all others would live but couldnt multiply.. or perhaps could have 1 kid then would face manditory sterilization.

Myself.. I had 1 kid then had tubes tied.

Answer 4

There are some flaws in you're theory/question. Animals do no longer "skinny the Herd", that's some thing that human beings do to determine a herd will survive a harsh iciness, working example, while foodstuff components are scarce. Animals do no longer kill different animals for "skill", animals kill for foodstuff or to sidestep becoming foodstuff. human beings do no longer could desire to "skinny the Herd" via fact we are able to the two rationing what supplies we've or finding for brand spanking new or exchange supplies. it relatively is why that's spoke of as ''homicide". we are able to taking good care of our susceptible, our sick, our elderly, and our much less smart, so there is not any could desire to skinny those human beings from the herd. and that i'm prepared to wager which you will no longer produce a single homicide wherein "Thinning The Herd" became into used via fact the protection. So being adverse to homicide isn't in any way inconsistent with evolution or morality. No, your question isn't probably a question in any respect is it. it relatively is yet yet another failed attempt at tying morality to a fabulous being. I could desire to admit that i'm slightly prepared on the actuality that a lot of theists seem to have faith that their concept in a god is basically element retaining them from going on some anarchisis killing spree. thank you and have a advantageous day.

Answer 5

i dont think there is any fair way to solve the problems. the birth rate has increased by 40% since the 1900s. we cant just say he dies and she lives or vice versa. what we can do is reduce the birth rate. everyone has the right to live their life to the fullest.

but truly i believe that who ever thought that we can just decide who lives n who dies is just plain wrong. its Hitler all over again.. instead its no longer the jews, its 40% or more of the people in the world. the current world population is about 6.5 billion. so 40% of that is 2.6 bill. that means 2.6 billion people are going to die? how does that seem fair?

survival of the fittest? that will cause more distruction. people who are more physically and mentally stronger will fight with others of the same. soon not only will the weak die, the stronger ones will die fighting among themselves too

all we can do is just prevent the population from increasing drastically. that is the only fair solution to this problem..

Answer 6

The ancients or pagan of thousands of years ago new that earths human population should not exceed 500 million the amount that is in perpetual balance with nature. Today the Illuminati have this population count as one of their 10 commandments. Google Georgia Stonehenge.

Answer 7

This is a very controversial question as China has tried to reduce its population by giving preference to families that only have one child, well if you look at the new figures, china will have a problem with not having enough people in the future because of this, if you can believe that...not enough females will be left.
Personally, I do not believe that just having one child will work. We have spent millions on "living longer" and keeping people alive that would have died in the not so distant past. If we are reducing the population over a few years, there would be a different answer, but if we had to reduce the population by 40% tomorrow only....lets first take all our death row inmates and "get it over with". second, lets unplug those that there is no hope for recovery, lets allow those who are terminal to commit doctor assisted suicide. I live in Texas, and our prison system is overflowing with death row inmates (although we do lead the country in death sentences carried out) Perhaps we could just execute all of ours and it might make close to the 40% needed.

Answer 8

War is how we've been doing it throughout the ages, why stop now?

In any case they'd phase it in and accomplish it through population control, and since that's such a hot potato I think the scientists would be overruled, as they so often are.

Answer 9

Mother Nature has her own way of taking care of business. She needs no intervention by man.

Think: floods, tsunami's, plagues and other diseases, earthquakes, volcanoes, drought, famine.

Then, there is always man-made war and genocide.

I think there is no need for population control....

Answer 10

There is no such thing in your scenario as 'Fair' it would only be the most prepared who would survive. Or the strongest, most capable Alpha males and their women and children. This may or may not include wealthy people, depending on the 'value' of money at that time. The survivors would include those who held the power in other ways, 'guns, land, followers?'

Population is best controlled by sex education, free contraception and self limiting the size of your family. In developing countries the development of health and social care, the development of community and trading communities and sex education, free contraception and self limiting of size of family. However for as long as we in the West exploit developing countries they will remain unable to have a 'real living wage' health care that mitigates against infant mortality and premature illness so they will continue to need large families to guarantee somebody to support them in their old age or through illness.