Poll: Should our species be exempt from culling?

[radioactive lemur]

I sincerely hope this thread is a joke, it's just sick. Otherwise, according to you people, Hitler and Stalin would not have been unspeakable monsters, just responsible environmentalists. Even the culling of animals is wrong. I have nothing against killing animals for meat, but we need to stop trying to control everything. Forget about "sustainability" and bullshit like that and just let nature run its fucking course.

EDIT: Although if you really want to lower the human population, all you environazis can feel free to start with your own fucking selves.

 

[DanielDeFig]

We don't actually have an overpopulation problem. we just have a food distribution problem. Just check out how much food is thrown away by the developed countries of the world, "because it would ruin the economy if we gave it away for free" (at least, that's my guess as to what their excuse is for not giving it away. Not an entirely unreasonable argument, but maybe that proves that the economic system is broken too)

Besides who would you start with? The "defective" humans, that would include myself due to my congenital heart defect. It would also include all people who need glasses, are blind, or deaf, or insane. Maybe you want to move on to the left-handed and the fat, and then the ugly (bald?).

See the problem? I personally find that one of the greatest achievements of humankind is to find ways for those with natural mutations, that would otherwise doom them in the wild, to live as equals among those with mutations that have a better chance of surviving the wild (but maybe I'm bias?).

 

[silentsentinel]

We already cull ourselves.

It's called war.

 

[Dimitriov]

Just wondering if the 132 of you who have so far voted in favor of human culling are volunteering?

Because otherwise your opinion would seem to lack conviction.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

The ideal way to do this is the Mass Effect way, engineer a virus/bacteria/etc that makes breading much more difficult.

Have you seen that George Carlin routine?

"What would the earth do if it was trying to get rid of us? Hmmm, viruses, they seem to vulnerable to those... And let's make it spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to breed. Hmm, perhaps something that attacks their immune system, making them vulnerable to anything else that might come along."

The problem with with that virus is that it kills the person rather than keeping them from reproducing.

Have you played mass effect, btw?

Actually considering the OP's statement about 'culling' humanity I say that good old AIDS should fit the bill. On a slightly kinder note I have a simple solution: make a world wide lottery and the winners get shot off into space with the materials they need to build colonies and then wash you hands of the whole affair. Next get the folks that lost to help clean up the earth and none of this forced labor crap, we'll do this honestly by having them get paid for their work.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I'm betting that the people who are all for the cull won't be first in line if it ever comes around. In fact, if it's so necessary, why haven't all gone on killing sprees or offed yourselves already? If we brought in a cull we would have to decide who to cull, which is a moral issue that I think is completely impossible for anyone to decide. If you think you can, then kindly beat your head against a wall. Not having the cull is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Plurralbles]

I woulda' said that maybe a world war would help but then again... the never-before-seen rate of scientific advancement during and after the wars were astounding and probably helped us get to the situation of being as bad as we are- at the very small cost of 50 million of us.

 

[Azure Sky]

The point I'm making is that we humans have unimaginable potential: just look at how far we've come in the last five thousand years. Trees and flowers have zero potential, and literally do not have minds, so should be disregarded.

So... Should we kill off all the plants and trees then? How about insects? or even half the other far inferior species could probably go as well. They are obviously in the way our progression to ascend to out rightful place as gods of this world? [/sarcasm]

Okay, that was probably quite offensive and distasteful to people, so apologies where needed.

Seriously though I am probably one of the first people to admit that I dislike other people, even put back in context, the superior-species entitlement some people have these days is quite disturbing.

I highly agree with Spartan though.

Humanity as a species is the most destructive force on this planet we are the only species that knowlingly destroys our environment, our atmosphere, and the extinction of other species. We have the gift of knowledge and we choose to burn the world to a cinder instead of using it to make a better place. With this view I do beleive the population does need to be monitered and controled but by civilized means like birth control.

While trying to work out how to perform some sort of culling would be amusing (Someone mentioned a lottery? That was quite genius.) I would have to say I am against.
I do fall into the category of people that think something needs to be done however.

 

[SilentCom]

Another word for culling is genocide. Since people are intelligence enough to dominate this planet, we should be intelligent to not screw it up. Efforts are in progress, though still in the beginning stage, to reverse the damage and over-population.

 

[MaVeN1337]

I say yes to sex. And no to babies.

 

[LadyMint]

Well this is just a sun-shiney topic, now isn't it?

The human race isn't exempt from culling or "thinning out of our numbers," so to speak. There's a lot in this world that kills us, including ourselves. Now, if you're talking about enacting some sort of legal lining up of people and killing them... I believe that's what the holocaust was and I don't know anyone who wants a return of that situation.

 

[Dimitriov]

I should also point out that culling will definitely not solve the problem. Do you know what people do when there is an increased rate of mortality? They start humping like rabbits... we didn't get as far as we have by being easy to kill off as a species.

After WW2? One of the biggest population booms in history.

 

[Kadoodle]

I'm for it, but they'd have to make it look like an accident.


Alternatively, we could stop looking for the cure to various diseases. Cancer, smallpox, polio, you name it.

 

[EPolleys]

The solution is simple (albeit not easy) colonize space, if not the planet Mars we could begin construction of a superstation capable of housing X amount of people (superlaser not included)
Seriously though a huge space station sounds more possible within a century than terraforming.

Edit: I'd just like to add that 1984 comes to mind when reading most of these posts suggesting we limit free will to control the population, or heavily suggest it through propaganda...

 

[BlackSaint09]

So you people think that either limiting human reproduction or all out mass-murder are the only options to solve this problem?(no offence to anyone on this thread)
I think the more difficult and more logical option of stabilizing the global economy and pumping more money into science so that we could start inhabiting other planets would be better.
But im not really an expert on these things.(no im serious not sarcastic)

 

[Azrael the Cat]

As the most destructive species on the planet, why are we not taking more drastic measures to lower our population? We're quick to kill thousands of animals for overpopulating, yet they aren't nearly as dangerous to the planet's wellbeing as we are.
Are we collectively too arrogant to see how disgusting our species really is?

I think you need to define culling. If you are talking about the extermination of humans you need to seek help. If you are talking about limiting child births and such... well people are arrogant, selfish, stupid, and unwilling to work for the greater good.


I think our biggest problem is that we killed natural selection.

Naturalism fallacy. We are still part of the process of natural selection - we've just altered what traits confer an advantage, like all apex predators have before us (creatures with tough hides made sharp teeth an advantage, creatures that destroyed much of the food source made the ability to scavenge/store food an advantage etc). We're not the only creature that builds things - bees and beavers do that too. We aren't even the only creatures that use tools (culturally separated, as opposed to purely instinctual, tool use has been found in chimps, orangutangs and bonobos).

We're just bees building hives, in a larger and more self-aggrandising manner. We are a naturally occurring creature, ergo everything we do is natural. It might not be right or wrong, but to distinguish it on the basis of greater or lesser naturalism is a logical fallacy - the only thing that could fail to be part of nature and natural selection would be if aliens arrived on Earth. And even then we might just have to extend our ideas of what 'natural' is, unless the aliens had no equivalent for genetic passing of material.

That doesn't mean that we don't have important moral significance. But that comes from our traits - the capacity for self-awareness, meaningful autonomy, pleasure and suffering through complex lifeplans and attribution of value to relationships and projects - not from what degree of 'naturalness' we hold.

 

[Caligulove]

I'm actually very disturbed 'No' is the leading answer..

If you're talking about the inevitable decrease in our population from overpopulation and foot shortages- that really cannot be stopped at some point, but to actively make policy to forcibly kill off our population- how the hell could you be in favor of that? How could you be so detached from humanity that you think it would be a good thing to just let us kill ourselves? We are the only known species that is both able to inflict great sorrow on ourselves but also the ability to take proactive measures and better ourselves.

This suggestion of culling ourselves is fucking Iron Age problem solving.

 

[drisky]

No, I don't think we should hunt humans for sport, General Zaroff.

 

[QUINTIX]

I say the human population is innovative enough to safely reach 2^35 persons (over 34 billion) before we need to start populating other planets.

We're just bees building hives

And computers, and videogames

Seriously, do none of you militant naturalists find it a little odd, given all the "diversity" just on our planet, that there isn't at least one another kind of creature on earth (radically different morphologically) with something as basic as a written language?