StarGateWars Forums

Universe wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:And it won't happen anyway...

Don't be too sure..

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a ... _id=007FHn

i like this topic as some americans are to ignorant to realize. i say we give warning and that any 1 who stays in usa is killed

LegendaryApophis wrote:Only thing that can get rid of humanity is an asteroid. And anyway, Security Council members would have some weapon to change its direction (or destroy it even!) and avoid earth's destruction.

ROFL.
No, they don't. Not until 2040 at least..
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Protecting_Earth_Against_Asteroids_999.html

But wait! There's hope yet..
This'll help.

Universe wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:And it won't happen anyway...

Don't be too sure..

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a ... _id=007FHn

I didn't say it couldnt be planned.
And this one is not revelant, how could we choose properly anyway? The "I dont like those countries/ethnies" will surely appear quite quickly.
Afterall...unless GOD himself decides to choose who to pick, nobody in this world has the right to decide who has to live or not, and even if they did, what proves they would do the right choice?

Only ones who did it were people who felt they were superior beings and that they did get rid of people being inferior to them. As otherwise, the questions/points I repeated several times prevent anything like that to be done.

Universe wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:Only thing that can get rid of humanity is an asteroid. And anyway, Security Council members would have some weapon to change its direction (or destroy it even!) and avoid earth's destruction.

ROFL.
No, they don't. Not until 2040 at least..
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Protecting_Earth_Against_Asteroids_999.html

But wait! There's hope yet..
This'll help.

We never know there, it's the odds that play.

ok, i just skipped every single post after pops 1st reply because (no disrespect intended to anyone) you guys don't read to well and don't seem to be taking this seriously enough...

that said, i DID underline the keyword and that is "Habitable" land, i never said there is enough desert so lets all move there and save the rest for whatever.

the fact IS, there is enough land and if the day comes when there is not enough land, then we posses the technology and know how to make even more room WITHOUT the need for underwater cities, migration to the polar arears or the need for population reduction...that is why i have a closed mind on the subject, but am willing to change my point of view if anyone can prove to me that with the right management of the habitable arrears we STILL don't have enough room.

btw, i'm also not interested in hearing that we should all be killed...we are here, and like all species of this planet (with the exception of a VERY small minority that wish to see all mankind dead, and also with the exception of homosexuals), we wish to have young to carry us on, so.... that's that as far as killing us all goes!


now can we please discuss the matter at hand and get away from death for us all and useless spam please?

As you, Avenger, and I, and others posting here know, growth is geometrical (or expentional if you prefer). Just take a look at 20th century. It's not one big linear growth. Logically, since most of humans eventually have child(ren). In past, the heavy losses by illness, famines and other things lowered the growth. But those people found the way to have a lot of children and when the health got better with progresses, they kept making as much children, explaining the sudden explosion of population. Demographic transition, in other words.

If you have 1000 humans in a town, no particular reasons to get out/no high death rate, people will have children, and if on generations coming nobody moves (earth is the town, so nobody quits it), then the growth carries on.
Those children will make children, who will make children and so on...if those people make 1 or two children, no problem, but since some families make 4-8 children, then the growth explodes, them making as much children as their parents.

A family: two people create 7 new children, if those 4 children marry (3 died before being able to marry), and then make 4 children each as well, we'll end with 2 grandparents, 8 average aged adults +12 children (assuming 4 of them died from 16 original). Those 12 children marrying too, then it's 24 people in the circle that generation alone, make 4 children, this generation, only one dies on each, so it's 72 (24x3) new people added to parents, 72+24....
Started with 2 people, 3 generations later, 96 people around (added wives and husbands, and people who died before having children). That's why I forsee 25bil people on earth the year of my death (if no major cataclysm occured).


Now to end with a fun fact:

Replicators replicate, humans procreate. Two different ways, giving same result.

i understand all that jim and i do think that having to many children in 1 household is not needed now because of advances in medical science...however, who are we to tell someone that they shouldnt have 10 kids?

if over population ever gets to the state that people are falling off the planet and people are walking on people to move around then we everyone has the right to tell someone with 10 kids to take his family and bugger off to space.

the fact is, here and now, we don't have a problem with over population and we do have technology to make even more room, so why does everyone say we are over populated when in fact we are FAAAAAR from being so?


btw, 4 people voted yes to we are over populated but nobody has shown any evidence to support it so how can you people in good conscience vote on something without knowing what it is you have voted on or even understand where i'm coming from?

The earth is over crowded with the wrong people. Its over crowded in general.

I believe Iran want to destroy a great historical site in order to make a new canal, and all these other wonders natural and ancient man made that will be destroyed because of our own recklessness.

Keep bumping into these fundamental errors today...

yay! Holocaust! I love it... I would do it.. but alas I dont have the power yet..

[KMA]Avenger wrote:btw, 4 people voted yes to we are over populated but nobody has shown any evidence to support it so how can you people in good conscience vote on something without knowing what it is you have voted on or even understand where i'm coming from?

I love how you turn the whole "you do not understand" issue completely around every time you're convinced of something.. Ah well.. I don't care about the world anyway. Heck, for all I care it explodes right under my feet right this instant. What is there to live for save wonderful sunsets and other stuff?

Besides, I thought you said you didn't read our posts anyway, so how would you know whether we gave evidence or not.. Anyway, every site I see that claims the world is empty enough for all of us is also convinced of "inside-jobs", "aliens-come-to-save-humanity", "reptilian humanoids", "Bilderberg group controls the world" and other crap I really could care less about.


The end is nigh. Repent.

Universe wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:btw, 4 people voted yes to we are over populated but nobody has shown any evidence to support it so how can you people in good conscience vote on something without knowing what it is you have voted on or even understand where i'm coming from?

I love how you turn the whole "you do not understand" issue completely around every time you're convinced of something.. Ah well.. I don't care about the world anyway. Heck, for all I care it explodes right under my feet right this instant. What is there to live for save wonderful sunsets and other stuff?

Besides, I thought you said you didn't read our posts anyway, so how would you know whether we gave evidence or not.. Anyway, every site I see that claims the world is empty enough for all of us is also convinced of "inside-jobs", "aliens-come-to-save-humanity", "reptilian humanoids", "Bilderberg group controls the world" and other crap I really could care less about.


The end is nigh. Repent.

I love your brain jo.

Semper wrote:The earth is over crowded with the wrong people. Its over crowded in general.

I believe Iran want to destroy a great historical site in order to make a new canal, and all these other wonders natural and ancient man made that will be destroyed because of our own recklessness.

Keep bumping into these fundamental errors today...

yay! Holocaust! I love it... I would do it.. but alas I dont have the power yet..

Who would be allowed to live/not live? By which criterias? Criterias from who? What would make those criterias right AND accurate (will they be successful? Will there be mistakes? If yes, terrible mistakes?)? Who would have right to choose who lives and who dies? What would give them this right? Why? How would they do it? Who would fund them?

I just have to quote myself to reply to that. No emotional reply. Just facts

Unless it's God himself (he's superior to us) who decides, nobody on this earth can complete accurately all of the above questions without doing any mistake.

it's sad universe that you can make such brash comments about conflicts you don't even really understand.

and your wrong avenger. I person does not need. 1/2 acre of land. They need land for food, water, entertainment, waste.... etc.. each person takes up far larger chunk of natural resources then you think.

tally all that up and then come back to the table.

Anyway, humans have always been the same, difference being, in past, they neither had the numbers, nor the ways, to screw all up, as we do now.
It's not the intentions that changed, but the way(s) to apply them.
If something is to be blamed on this topic, it's progress. See, those tribes on jungles or mountains, they didn't change much, and if we didn't came around to screw up their places, they could still live few thousand years more without problems.

As the proverb says:

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, if there was a selection to happen, it's not people feeling they are better than the rest for xyz reasons who should survive, but those tribes living on mountains, deserts or forests. Ones least likely to screw all over again in a matter of days in other words.

LegendaryApophis wrote:Who would be allowed to live/not live? By which criterias? Criterias from who? What would make those criterias right AND accurate (will they be successful? Will there be mistakes? If yes, terrible mistakes?)? Who would have right to choose who lives and who dies? What would give them this right? Why? How would they do it? Who would fund them?

I just have to quote myself to reply to that. No emotional reply. Just facts
[/quote]

Well... I would decide. Criteria?

Well... anyone not working for a living when they could. Dead. Anyone younger than 20 with a criminal record. Dead. Council Estates across the world would be sterilised. Any alcoholic, any person with a body fat % above 30, any known drug user would all be given an Ultimatum to clean themselves up, and helped by the state. If not, dead. I estimate a good 60% minimum of the global population should be removed.

Africans would be indefinitely stalled in their technological and social development, and all general interaction with the 'rich north' would be stopped. They would also, however be periodically kulled to keep them to a more usable level.

The USA would be eradicated, they seem to just make things worse rather than better these days, their 'culture' is abysmal and the country is 99% a breeding ground for scum and villainy or incompetent red neck tits with more guns and money than the country's collective sense.

South Americans would be given an Ultimatum to leave the amazon a lone, and offered North American as new Lebensraum.

The east/middle east would be eradicated also, and the 'holy land' respected as it should be.

All nuclear weapons, all WMD's would be removed.

The laws would be re-written. Murder/treason = death. Theft = loss of limb. Rape = neutering. Assualt and battery = torture. Guilty until proven innocent. Other punishments would vary depending on severity and intent.

Massive tax's would be imposed upon 'useless earners' (ie footballers, movie stars and beyond) to the point where none would ever earn more then an honest wage every year (a good 20-25k).

'unclean' sources of power would also be heavily restrained and used wisely. Cars would be limited to one per family, air plane uses would be limited too.

All international debt would be cancelled, and the only armed forces permitted would be that of the UN's and a skeleton force as a 'home guard', that would not be in excess of 250k souls.

Philosophy and I.T would become as important in all schools as Science, english and maths. Arts and history would also be given a higher priority.

Religion would no longer be taught as a set of facts, but rather opinions and stories. (IE Jesus died on the cross, would become "if Jesus did in fact live, it was said he died on the cross") No persons below the age of 13 would be allowed to go to church except for a wedding, and then it would be considered a criminal act to force a child to attend any religious ceremonies if they did not choose to do so. The Bible would be... reinvented to make more logical sense.

Other religious would have similar changes to hinder the indoctrinating effect they DO have on children, before the child is old enough to actually make up its own mind of whether to follow a faith or not.

All youths would be forced to do a minimum of 2 years part time service either before or after University (which would become compulsory unless you were moving into a trade).

Binge drinking would be discouraged and punished, if not limited all together. Smoking would be abolished and no longer permitted in civilised society.

How would it be funded and done. Well, the killing would be summary executions. How would it all be imposed... well grand schemes and global trickery. Or...something amazingly radical and impractical..

however, its all near enough impossible so it will never happen.

That wasn't a very good argument apophis.

So instead of dealing with over crowding we should be go back to dying of plague, malnutrition, the common cold...?

Really, Progress....

Edit: I guess if semper ever gets into power i will have to go Oswald.

Semper wrote:

LegendaryApophis wrote:Who would be allowed to live/not live? By which criterias? Criterias from who? What would make those criterias right AND accurate (will they be successful? Will there be mistakes? If yes, terrible mistakes?)? Who would have right to choose who lives and who dies? What would give them this right? Why? How would they do it? Who would fund them?

I just have to quote myself to reply to that. No emotional reply. Just facts

Well... I would decide. Criteria?

Well... anyone not working for a living when they could. Dead. Anyone younger than 20 with a criminal record. Dead. Council Estates across the world would be sterilised. Any alcoholic, any person with a body fat % above 30, any known drug user would all be given an Ultimatum to clean themselves up, and helped by the state. If not, dead. I estimate a good 60% minimum of the global population should be removed.

Killing people who don't work when they can? There, comes what do we propose them, ie jobs at €500 a month in West Europe. I, would not accept it. Is it exagerated? No, not all jobs are nice and attractive enough, you know. Alcaholic? Define it. Many definitions of it. Alcohol is hardest one to determine whether someone is dependent or not, it being a drink. What about people being accused of something they didn't do? People "looking like" a criminal mistaken and being charged for looking similar.

Africans would be indefinitely stalled in their technological and social development, and all general interaction with the 'rich north' would be stopped. They would also, however be periodically kulled to keep them to a more usable level.

What does kulled mean?

The USA would be eradicated, they seem to just make things worse rather than better these days, their 'culture' is abysmal and the country is 99% a breeding ground for scum and villainy or incompetent red neck tits with more guns and money than the country's collective sense.

Isn't it a bit too much...prejudice-like? I agree many scums live there, but many good people also live there.

South Americans would be given an Ultimatum to leave the amazon a lone, and offered North American as new Lebensraum.

lol south america invading USA.

The east/middle east would be eradicated also, and the 'holy land' respected as it should be.

Why?

All nuclear weapons, all WMD's would be removed.

Not bad idea I guess, unless we got aliens invasion

The laws would be re-written. Murder/treason = death. Theft = loss of limb. Rape = neutering. Assualt and battery = torture. Guilty until proven innocent. Other punishments would vary depending on severity and intent.

Aren't we falling into kill before judge later? There it's tyranny and we loose more than we gain by doing it.

Massive tax's would be imposed upon 'useless earners' (ie footballers, movie stars and beyond) to the point where none would ever earn more then an honest wage every year (a good 20-25k).

They wouldn't accept it lol...we live in capitalist world dude

'unclean' sources of power would also be heavily restrained and used wisely. Cars would be limited to one per family, air plane uses would be limited too.

Not bad...

All international debt would be cancelled, and the only armed forces permitted would be that of the UN's and a skeleton force as a 'home guard', that would not be in excess of 250k souls.

Not bad...

Philosophy and I.T would become as important in all schools as Science, english and maths. Arts and history would also be given a higher priority.

Not bad at all...

Religion would no longer be taught as a set of facts, but rather opinions and stories. (IE Jesus died on the cross, would become "if Jesus did in fact live, it was said he died on the cross") No persons below the age of 13 would be allowed to go to church except for a wedding, and then it would be considered a criminal act to force a child to attend any religious ceremonies if they did not choose to do so. The Bible would be... reinvented to make more logical sense.

Hmmm strange but in large view, not too bad

Other religious would have similar changes to hinder the indoctrinating effect they DO have on children, before the child is old enough to actually make up its own mind of whether to follow a faith or not.

Not bad...

All youths would be forced to do a minimum of 2 years part time service either before or after University (which would become compulsory unless you were moving into a trade).

Military service?

Binge drinking would be discouraged and punished, if not limited all together. Smoking would be abolished and no longer permitted in civilised society.


Agreed for first, alcohol is good but excessive use is bad. Nah, prohibition doesn't work. History shown it.

How would it be funded and done. Well, the killing would be summary executions. How would it all be imposed... well grand schemes and global trickery. Or...something amazingly radical and impractical..

however, its all near enough impossible so it will never happen.[/quote]
What would give you the right to decide it and why? Those are on my list hehe
I said that this wall of questions, unless you are crazy like hitler, can't be passed. If God decided the above, it would be different. Answered in yellow one by one.

Thriller wrote:That wasn't a very good argument apophis.

So instead of dealing with over crowding we should be go back to dying of plague, malnutrition, the common cold...?

Really, Progress....

Edit: I guess if semper ever gets into power i will have to go Oswald.

Hey, I'm not the one who really wants it to happen. So I threw best way for planet, not humanity hehe.
I just told the most logical way to save the planet, objective and above personal interests. What Earth would like, in other words.
I expected people don't like it. hehe