Court TV: 'The Great Culling will soon begin...'

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 5, 2011 01:04
VIEWED: 22280
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

KWICKO

Friday, April 1, 2011 11:47 PM

CTS, not to be trite, but 60 million over 10 years doesn't even begin to keep up with "inflation" - I mean that the population of the world will grow by half a billion or more in that time.

So again, not exactly a "culling" by any stretch of the imagination, whereby PN was claiming that global population would be declining by 10% per year.

Not only does it not decline, but the rate of growth ACCELERATES.

Heck, I *wish* people would institute a one-child policy per couple, voluntarily and only on themselves, of course. Imagine halving a population in a generation without violence, war, or epidemic being the cause.

Of course, nothing like this will happen. We'll continue to encourage the poor to breed, because corporations need cheap labor, and needn't ever concern themselves with the health or longevity of their employees in a "free market" economy.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 2, 2011 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
CTS, not to be trite, but 60 million over 10 years doesn't even begin to keep up with "inflation" ...So again, not exactly a "culling" by any stretch of the imagination, whereby PN was claiming that global population would be declining by 10% per year.

Mini-culling?

60 million in 10 years is still an average of one Jewish Holocaust per year, which is pretty damn horrific. This would not be normal. I won't go so far as 10% per year, but I do see things getting catastrophically worse for mankind in the next decade. I see too many signs of upcoming world wars, holocausts, and genocides.

Of course, I hope to God I that come 2021, I find myself chained to PN listening to his rants as my punishment for daring to imagine such an atrocious future.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 2, 2011 6:58 AM

I'm with Mike, I think your estimate is low.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 2, 2011 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm with Mike, I think your estimate is low.

I gamble conservatively.

What's *your* estimate?

RIONAEIRE

Monday, April 4, 2011 6:17 AM

Well, I guess we're all still here, including PN.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

DREAMTROVE

Monday, April 4, 2011 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm with Mike, I think your estimate is low.
I gamble conservatively.

What's *your* estimate?

I try not to gamble.

Say, send me an email sometime.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

HERO

Monday, April 4, 2011 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Well, I guess we're all still here, including PN.

Nope, he's definately on the list. Right between Snooki and some fella from Indiana who thinks fish have feelings.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 4, 2011 9:29 PM

Quote:
Heck, I *wish* people would institute a one-child policy per couple, voluntarily and only on themselves, of course. Imagine halving a population in a generation without violence, war, or epidemic being the cause.

Of course, nothing like this will happen. We'll continue to encourage the poor to breed, because corporations need cheap labor, and needn't ever concern themselves with the health or longevity of their employees in a "free market" economy.

I... Can't agree with this. And I'm going to attempt to break down why. It probably won't make sense to anyone who isn't paranoid or obsessed with conspiracy, but it's a stab at what I think and feel.

Your statement about corporations needing more labour rings true. It's also true that the poor have the most children, to offset the inevitable losses that need and deprivation would result in. It's even possible that having lots of children makes for fewer resources to share among the children, exacerbating the situation.

As a side note, children can also be a source of income, though there's a difference between fair labour and exploitation. But let's just say that kids are a drain on income for now.

The angry mob of poor have been discouragement from bad behaviour on the part of the rich since class division was invented. Even though the rich can afford better guns, diet, and medical treatment, numbers are the main advantage that the poor have over the rich. On just a money/corruption level, the system as it is now is far from honest, and yet the poor can still theoretically vote with their money against the rich. On a vigilante law level, retribution may the the only thing that keeps utter sociopaths and tyrants in line (though admittedly at this point not well).

Because the rich can afford superior technology and medical treatment, their children aren't as much at risk for these loses.

Encouraging such a program to halve the population in a generation means by necessity there would be fewer poor people born than rich people, as even in the initial premise, it's suggested the fact that the poor being unable to support their children is a reason not to have them (which may not be wrong, but there's potential consequences for this, too). More than that, the poor would have to have fewer children in general to make up for a historic tendency to have lots of children, while the harsh environment will drop the number of poor births/survivals further.

You would have a brief turn-around period of enlightenment for the poor as there would be a defeminization of poverty, but overall standard of living only improves if there is some means for newly educated women and their families to support themselves afterward, preferably not the exploitation jobs offered by foreign interests, but jobs that build a local economy. And if not jobs and the tie to capitalism that implies, then land or resources. These people are poor, it's assumed they don't really start with land or resources.

So my conclusion is the burden of this policy would fall on the poor. Such a policy may help the individuals, but it hurts the demographic relative to other demographics.

And I further note that maybe the real problem is more with the system itself than what the poor do and don't have and whether they should have children. Lack of resources seems to be a product of the system to me. It also seems to me it might be more important to be born and alive than it would be for concerns about health and longevity. You don't have to worry about either of those if you aren't even born.

Lastly, I have concerns about a possible genetic bottleneck if many humans are encouraged to not reproduce. Our best defense against increased incidence of inbreeding and dangerous/fatal genetics that might be brought out by inbreeding is to keep the human gene pool as diverse as possible... And the best way for that is the already existing evolutionary processes we have, where people continue trying to nurture some personal genetic time capsules to maturity.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 1:04 AM

Mike,

I think you're way off the mark on this one, but I'm not inclined to argue. You seem tense lately, I don't know if it's stress or just your spats with Rappy ;) But seriously, you do. You're not usually this down on humanity. I've been going through a tense time here, so I know what it's like.

Byte,

Corporations don't need labor. They want lower wages. Increasing the labor pool does that, but there's already a labor surplus, caused by automation. The natural evolution of society would be that we would create something new which would give work to more people, which we are doing, it's called the internet, but the wage system isn't catching up, and won't.

There is no shortage of resources. Everything humans use can be manufactured in abundance. Under a trillion humans, there's no problem other than *how* we get those resources. If you want to put a population limit based on resource management, I probably wouldn't oppose that, if it were innate to the system (like making all food local, etc.) rather than having it opposed from above (which I would oppose, because this would be abused by those in power to favor their own children over everyone else's.) But even oil is in infinite supply. Exxon says they can create oil at $80/barrel using only water and sunlight. The carbon comes from the co2 through the photosynthesis of the algae, and the water is released back into the ecosystem. Right now, there are cheaper sources of oil, but oil is selling at $105 a barrel, so it's safe to say that we cannot run out of oil. We have enough oil forever at this price. Also, oil synthesis will get cheaper, and so the price of oil will come down as it does, and volume of production goes down.

Quote:
As a side note, children can also be a source of income, though there's a difference between fair labour and exploitation. But let's just say that kids are a drain on income for now.

Also, viewed in a non-monetary way, kids do housework, farmwork, stuff that saves mom and dad time. This increases the parent's time available for earning power, so they should be a net benefit. *American* kids are a financial liability, largely through things like student loans, etc. but also, their use as a time-asset is limited by the pointless and needlessly long school day. Studies show repeatedly that kids who get two hours of schooling a day perform better than those who receive eight.

Part of the reason other countries have more children is that children are an economic benefit under different models than the one we use. None of this is conspiracy theory, it's simple logic.

Here's where conspiracy theory enters into it, but I think this can also be logically derived: TPTB are tied to an economic system that does not favor large families. They not only use this system to stay in power, it is the system itself which is in power, and if they leave it, they are not in power. The system lives on like an undead beast. That system fears competition from other systems that favor more children.

But it's not overpopulation that is damaging the planet, it's 400 assholes in Texas. (and, sure, some in NY, too.) It's a small greedy elite whose greed is based on their struggle for power with others in their system, and that system is favoring destruction of the planet. The people, the population, the resources, none of these are a threat. It is the system itself which is a threat. We can only defeat it by evolutionarily replacing it with a better system.

Quote:
The angry mob of poor have been discouragement from bad behaviour on the part of the rich since class division was invented. Even though the rich can afford better guns, diet, and medical treatment, numbers are the main advantage that the poor have over the rich.

Yes, and will always be, as the economic system of the rich favors their low numbers.

Quote:
the poor can still theoretically vote with their money against the rich.

Depends on how you group them. I think within corporate america, this might be true, but when you ex

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2