A Realistic Way for People to Live Together

[LHX]

yall aint hear about the new plug-ins?

[Bhode_Sativa]

its not the proportion I want to change, its the total number of humans

Those organisms that are at the top of the food chain are widely spread out, and represent a small percentage of the total beings for any sustainable ecosystem.  There are too many people already to be sustainable.  The only answer is the death of massive amounts of the current human population, which is unacceptable to most people because they think they have a right to exist.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Well, how do you change that proportion, then?

Gas chambers and breeding licenses.

[Bhode_Sativa]

breeding licenses FTW

[AFK]

who lives and who dies?

who gets to breed and who doesn't?

[Bhode_Sativa]

We all die, but breeding would be allowed by the smart half, and only one child, in order to drastically reduce the total world population, while still increasing its potential.  But as I am against all forms of control of others, I really don't agree with myself, I'm just pointing out the liabilities inherent in the current situation.  Giving anyone power is inherently bad, but we can't achieve sustainable numbers without some massive reduction in the population.  Maybe a nice disease?

[LMNO]

Bhode, have you heard of the Church of Euthenasia?

They have 4 pillars of faith:

Suicide
Sodomy
Cannabalism
Abortion

Google them, if you want.

[P3nT4gR4m]

We all die, but breeding would be allowed by the smart half, and only one child, in order to drastically reduce the total world population, while still increasing its potential.  But as I am against all forms of control of others, I really don't agree with myself, I'm just pointing out the liabilities inherent in the current situation.  Giving anyone power is inherently bad, but we can't achieve sustainable numbers without some massive reduction in the population.  Maybe a nice disease?

Don't worry too much about overpopulation nature will take care of that one way or another. Of course there might be a slight underpopulation or zeropopulation issue once it's finished.

[AFK]

We all die, but breeding would be allowed by the smart half, and only one child, in order to drastically reduce the total world population, while still increasing its potential.  But as I am against all forms of control of others, I really don't agree with myself, I'm just pointing out the liabilities inherent in the current situation.  Giving anyone power is inherently bad, but we can't achieve sustainable numbers without some massive reduction in the population.  Maybe a nice disease?

how do you define "smart"?

and also limiting to one child will be okay for awhile, but generally speaking, a birth rate less than 2 is bad for maintaining a population. 

[LMNO]

What if 2 smart people breed a stupid kid?



LMNO
-terrified at the thought of having a dumb-ass jock for a kid.

[Triple Zero]

Bhode, have you heard of the Church of Euthenasia?

They have 4 pillars of faith:

Suicide
Sodomy
Cannabalism
Abortion

Google them, if you want.

they also make some kickass electro music. i saw rev Korda perform live once.

you should really check out his "i like to watch" video

[Bhode_Sativa]

I've only just begun to poke around the Church of Euthanasia, but so far I like what I see. 

I don't define smart, the culture does, I just use their definitions that are reflected in standardized testing, and Yes, I know that standardized testing has more holes than a block of swiss cheese, but tell me you've never interacted with someone at work, a bar, the grocery store and thought to yourself "God, that person is Dumb!"  Even without a perfect definition of Smart, we all know what it means to be stupid.

The whole point would be to drastically Reduce the population, not maintain it. 

[Bhode_Sativa]

If two smart people breed a stupid kid then that kid doesn't get to procreate.  Natural Selection would have to become Intelligent Selection.

[AFK]

I've only just begun to poke around the Church of Euthanasia, but so far I like what I see. 

I don't define smart, the culture does, I just use their definitions that are reflected in standardized testing, and Yes, I know that standardized testing has more holes than a block of swiss cheese, but tell me you've never interacted with someone at work, a bar, the grocery store and thought to yourself "God, that person is Dumb!"  Even without a perfect definition of Smart, we all know what it means to be stupid.

The whole point would be to drastically Reduce the population, not maintain it. 

Yes, but at some point you do have to maintain it.  Unless you are looking at the total extinction of the human species.  At some point, I'm assuming, you would want it to level off at a population that is considered "acceptable"  At that point you would have to allow the birth-rate to be at least 2.0 or the population could not be maintained. 

[Bhode_Sativa]

Agreed