Poll: You must choose

[vxicepickxv]

There's really no such thing as a global population problem. Scientists have explained this already.

What nonsense is this? And who are these crackpot scientists?

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html


http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/shout-box/19818-overpopulation-myth.html

Wait a minute here.

First link - Well, he brings up a couple of possible points, however, he's only providing specialized data for specific areas, which kind of makes sense as a microbiologist. He's not looking for entire worldwide trends. No data on Central and South America, no data on Australia. It looks like a lot of dumbed down opinion pieces hiding as science articles.

I wasn't aware that having a doctorate in economics made you a scientist, especially when you bring up specific points that sound good, but if acted upon would be false. Of course, it's worth even less trust when you link to a forum, with a large pair of topic posts that in turn links to WND, which isn't exactly the most impartial or trustworthy source of anything other than American right wing hate.




OT:I picked option 1, I think I know where I'd start.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

The first one. We are vastly overpopulated and, while I have no right to choose who lives or dies, we could stand to lose at least some people until we figure out how to sustain these kinds of numbers.

We figured it decades ago, pills and condoms work wonders. Lack of education and stone age religious believes keep them from being used worldwide.
Still we are doing better than first thought. We reached 6 billions in the mid 80s and projections said by then we would reach 7 billions by the end of the 90s. We probably "just" will reach it next year. But after Europe, North America and Japan, over the last two decades many other areas slowed down or halted population growth (China, most of Latina America and even some muslim countries). But you have other still growing too fast like Sub saharan Africa and India (India, just 3 decades ago had just half of the population of China, now has almost the same and is ready to overtake it in 4 or 5 years).

 

[crop52]

Option 2. I will not let anyone call me a murderer.

 

[Richardplex]

unless the chance was 25% or higher for option B, probability wise it's not worth it. Less people is good anyway.

 

[squeekenator]

Option 2. Even if it does go wrong there won't be anyone left to get upset about it.

 

[Cheesus333]

I'd risk it. If everyone survives - great! Win for everyone!

If everyone dies... well, who's gonna notice, right?

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

World has too many people in it (not necessarily overpopulated but could use trimming certainly)

Also, if I got to choose the sections of society that got culled I could do things like getting rid of politicians, dictators, whatever, and even if not, then hey, 3 billion is still a nice viable human population, so there's not really much downside. Especially given that the alternative could be that everyone dies, no matter how slim.

Without more information I couldn't really comment. For example if the thing causing me to make this choice is a 2012 type apocalypse scenario, then option two, if it's a famine, then it has to be option 2, asteroid hit, zombie apocalypse. Most scenarios I can think of I think it would be better to sacrifice half the population, but I'm sure there are some where the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

 

[SinorKirby]

I'd risk it, even if the odds were in favor of everyone dying. It just makes more sense to have everyone die or no one die than to have half of all the people die.

 

[Chaos-Spider]

Risk it.

Option 1: Kill half of human race
Outcome: Half of human race dies, and I get to live with the knowledge that I made a decision, knowing what would happen.

Option 2: Take the risk
Outcome 1: No one dies, all is well.
Outcome 2 Everyone dies, I don't have to deal with anything, because I, too, am dead.

Option 2:
Outcome 3: X happens...It wasn't included in the poll so it is quite likely nothing, nothing happened so now you look silly.

all in all, risking it sounds ok. My luck is not that great, but it's not terrible enough to kill everyone.

 

[Chaos-Spider]

I'm going to go with option number 2.
But only because as the Mighty Vrex, I would actually be hoping that it fails and the entire human race goes extinct.

Alternatively, I could just do option number 1 but do it twice.

But that would only result in the deaths of 75 percent of the original human population, so you'd basically be doing option 1 over and over until the human population got so small it could no longer support itself and maintain genetic diversity.

also, appologies for double posting, (even if the content is different).

 

[Agarth]

If your going to have a forum like this can you give us a background to stuff like why? PLEASE?
Is this related to a video-game? Is it movie related? Is it standard question material? I just can't choose an answer with no context.

 

[StBishop]

Do I get to choose who doesn't die? If not I would risk it. I wouldn't risk people I care about dying.

My thinking to a tee. I would rather take the 100% chance of 50% of people living.

EDIT: I risk it. I initially read it as Option 1: blah blah
Option 2: "2.93%" success. It wasn't until I realised that with only 2.93% and 7% there must be a third outcome. I went to re-read the OP and saw my mistake.

 

[Salizer]

Hard choice.

Option 1:
Guaranteed that 50% dies, but no way of knowing who.
The outcomes can be all from no big effect, where it would people with not so 'important' jobs or roles, to catastrophic if for example people taking care of power plants(Nuclear) and military facilities were gone and then these things would be unprotected, so someone could possible use these places to kill the rest, because they are depressed over their lost family and friends or just wants people to die (Some of the posters, seem to like this option if the outcome is this).

Option 2:
Pretty high chance of survival for all, but the chance of everybody dying is still there. But if everyone dies, the World would still live on, but it would also in the other case, except if the survivors decided to end it all by nuking the earth.

I would choose option 2, because option 1 would have a high probability of leaving the World in an unstable state, and in option 2, if it fails, then there would be no one to care about it

 

[Esotera]

Option 1: because statistically this is most likely to save the most lives. Also the way it's worded it sounds like I get to pick who goes, and there's definitely a few people who deserve that fate.

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

I would go for option 1, it doesn't even have to be a bad thing, it could even be seen as a chance to do a little spring, every poacher, crouped government official, and every ass hole that has ever pissed me off should fear the day I get to make this decision.

 

[Rawne1980]

There is a good chance that I could eliminate most reality TV shows in that 50% that go so i'll take option 1.

 

[Corax_1990]

Option 2, but only if everyone knew about it, otherwise there would be no point to it.

 

[Duruznik]

Sorry, I really wouldn't want to risk our ENTIRE race being whiped out. I'd rather we go through a bottleneck than an extinction.