Human Cull?

Question

Should there be a massive human cull with in the next fifty years (either natural or man made) if we are to survive the next five hundred years.

Answer 1

Yes. All species have a natural balance mechanism in place when the population gets out of control. Man is the only species that circumvents this process and we are way overpopulated and destroying the earth like a bunch of cockroaches.

Answer 2

Personally I don't think we're in such dire straights yet to have cull masses of people in order to survive as a species for the next 500 years.

Infact, I wouldn't say the world is even over populated. Yes, there are lots of cities that are crammed with people, but there is far more empty spaces on the planet that people could occupy. And there's enough food in the world to feed everybody. It just needs to be shared out, which is no easy task I know, but it's not impossible.

Global warming caused by cfc's etc is being taken seriously now, so steps are being taken to slow it down and maybe one day stop it from getting worse.

The fight against rogue states getting their hands on enriched uranium which could be used to make neclear weapons (especially dirty bombs) is on going. So is the fight against diseases, viruses etc in the medical world.

All of which points to the view that as a species we are looking at ways to preserve life, now that we realise how damaging we have been to life.

It's not ideal but apart from living in some unrealistic utopian state it's difficult to see how we can really control all the things that go on in the world that are harmful to us or the planet.

Eventually every species becomes extinct, so I expect it will be no different for us. So whether we cull part of the worlds population, we are wiped out on a mass scale by natural disaster, or take all the measures we are already taking to preserve life, it will only delay the inevitable.

But I don't think the inevitable is going to happen within 500 years.

Answer 3

I agree, we are in % of human culling besides the shown fact that i could have a different demographic in ideas. i could commence with maximum human beings and then flow directly to all different the different grasping bastards international who're employing a techniques much greater of the worlds components than is honest. i could cull every person who replaced into in touch in war or military (i could provide them the choice to leave and positioned down their weapons first) after all of those i could kill any terrorists who nevertheless felt the ought to kill human beings. Then i could cull the money lenders, those despicable contributors of society who get wealthy from usury. Reaping the advantages from yet another mans toil. After that i could cull any dictators who did no longer act entirely for the coolest thing approximately the individuals, yet earlier them i could cull all corrupt politicians. it may be messy, little doubt approximately it and there are some different communities i could do away with. i think of i could in all probability be doing away with 1 / 4 to a nil.5 of the total inhabitants of the international and that i could could discover an ecologically sound way of doing it. it can be quite complicated yet nicely worth it. final of all i could could cull myself using fact i do no longer think of that each and each individual else could could share the planet with a murderous s.o.b. like me. It would not be honest on them. i'm afraid you may in all probability could bypass besides.

Answer 4

Man made? - hell no! Are you kidding? Who's gonna play God, how, and according to what criteria? There are positively no good answers to any of those questions, and the probable and terrible unintended consequences are, I think, not worth the risk - especially in light of the fact that the intended benefits of such a cull are not guaranteed, and I think, unnecessary; I'm not even sure what benefits you're after.(genetic, I assume, but what traits?)

Natural? - Who can say? Only Mother Nature.

I don't think a cull would determine our survival one way or the other. If we can save ourselves from any of the things that might snuff us out in the future, I think it will be through policy and technology.

Answer 5

You might want to suggest the less drastic idea of making sure that abortion rights are protected and that poor unwanted children are not born into a world that talks about Culling the living! I don't trust any government to decide who should live and who die. We are walking laboratories for viruses and bugs that will develop and, the chances are good that one will sweep through the world. Good luck.

Answer 6

Have you noticed how science tries to keep up with new diseases. Aids has not been conquered, infections are becoming resistant, viruses are mutating. Eventually there will be a major disaster and science may not be ready.
Wars used to make the difference, but even the Generals don't want blood on their hands, so everything has gone softly softly.
We may have to face the choice of fuel or food next. Who will play god then?

Answer 7

If anythings going to threaten human survival, it must by definition involve deaths on a massive scale. Humans are as well placed as any land-based mammal of comparative size to survive any extinction scenario we can foresee.

If your question is really about the environmental damage we as a species are causing, consider this, most of the people on this planet live marginal lives, and are very vulnerable to environmental changes (famine, disease, natural disasters, war), the people who consume the most and do the most damage are in the safest positions.

Let's kill the rich and feed them to the poor.

Answer 8

interesting thought ... and who would be responsible for deciding who to cull? Possibly a better solution would be a limitation on the number of children produced by each female.

Answer 9

If you advocate this, you could be in legal trouble. No matter whether you use a lottery, go by alphabetical order, by first born, or just randomly, you are advocating the murder of people for your own ends. It is not my end, so to kill me would be neccesary only for your own ends. And if others take you to "heart" and begin this "culling", you could be charged with inciting or other crimes of inducing others into crime.

Answer 10

As a moral being i find the idea of genocide to be in bad taste, but i also understand the need to control the population.

Britian's population has already fallen below replacement level so we are getting older and there is less young people. so in other countries perhaps?

I think to do so also postulates the question of who is more valuable? a doctor or a baby?