How would you control the world population?

[Nick_A]

How would I control the world population?
Kill all the priests - not just the Catholic ones; all of them, imams, parsons, ministers, shamans, popas.
Then burn all their holy books.
Then do whatever seems reasonable and practical.

Bravo. Kill first and ask questions later. Kill anyone who is emotionally moved to determine who lives or dies. Only logic should determine if you live or die when called to appear before the panel of logical, reasonable, robots. It is the only fair thing to do. No BS, no crying, just the facts which prove to the panel of robots if you are worthy or unworthy of life.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How would I control the world population?
Kill all the priests - not just the Catholic ones; all of them, imams, parsons, ministers, shamans, popas.
Then burn all their holy books.
Then do whatever seems reasonable and practical.

Bravo. Kill first and ask questions later. Kill anyone who is emotionally moved to determine who lives or dies. Only logic should determine if you live or die when called to appear before the panel of logical, reasonable, robots. It is the only fair thing to do. No BS, no crying, just the facts which prove to the panel of robots if you are worthy or unworthy of life.

Well it certainly shouldn't be you anyway.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Have a beautiful pain free place to go to commit suicide if you should choose to....stop making it against the law and taboo!

Hear hear. Isn't euthanasia legal in some parts of the US?

Yes, I think so...but I think it's only available to terminally ill type cases.

I think it should be available to consenting adults whenever they chose and for whatever reason.

Imagine the uproar and protests today from the sticky-beaking 'Nicks' of the world if anyone dared to put a scene like this in a film today. Terrible quality but the others were even worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edQNjJZFdLU

[Skip]

Bravo. Kill first and ask questions later.

What's left to ask? We already know what rules various priesthoods have made regarding the reproductive functions of other people.

Only logic should determine if you live or die

Who said anything about logic? Everybody dies - that's not up for debate. The only question is whether individuals have the right and power to decide whether and how much they reproduce, and when it's time to die.
No more sky-daddy-sez coercion. That's what caused all this overpopulation.

[Nick_A]

Bravo. Kill first and ask questions later.

What's left to ask? We already know what rules various priesthoods have made regarding the reproductive functions of other people.

Only logic should determine if you live or die

Who said anything about logic? Everybody dies - that's not up for debate. The only question is whether individuals have the right and power to decide whether and how much they reproduce, and when it's time to die.
No more sky-daddy-sez coercion. That's what caused all this overpopulation.

The only question is whether individuals have the right and power to decide whether and how much they reproduce, and when it's time to die.

But you cannot make such a decision. It isn't fair. The world's population is measured after they have reproduced. Solving the problem means less people. Only robots are logical enough to decide who lives or dies. Wouldn't you prefer a logical impartial robot decide if you are worthy of a life rather than a relative who could be influenced emotionally? The age of reason demands abolishing archaic emotional decisions concerning life and death. Only robots are capable of this quality of logical reasoning.

[Skip]

[The only question is whether individuals have the right and power to decide whether and how much they reproduce, and when it's time to die.]

But you cannot make such a decision. It isn't fair.

I have made both of those decisions for myself - declined to reproduce and devised an exit strategy.

The world's population is measured after they have reproduced.

Now.

Solving the problem means less people.

Next generation. And even fewer the generation after.

Only robots are logical enough to decide who lives or dies.

Well, the major powers have a lot of military drones now, will probably have more next year, and keep on bombing in the meantime. Not sure those weapons are actually making the decision as to who dies, but they're certainly carrying out the program.

Wouldn't you prefer a logical impartial robot decide if you are worthy of a life rather than a relative who could be influenced emotionally?

Why would those be the choices? I'd rather decide for myself and let them decide for themselves.

The age of reason demands abolishing archaic emotional decisions concerning life and death. Only robots are capable of this quality of logical reasoning.

Kay. You're welcome to have a robot take you out.

[Greta]

Skip, how inhuman of you! Now if you were saying that all secularists should be killed ...

Meanwhile, Nick has a new flight of fancy as his much vaunted Great Beast morphs into The Great Machine, which will in turn be supplanted by the Great Network before coalescing into archangels and eventually God as it collapses into an ultramassive black hole beyond space and time ...

Levity aside, it's all moot anyway. Humans have not managed to adapt sufficiently for a "soft landing" with climate change, so now the world itself will control the world's population.

As resources diminish, with reduced arable land and habitable areas, there will be more conflict over what's left, leading to wars, famine and disease. That result has been locked in by our numbers and policies so all that remains is for it to play out. Note that many conservative theistic politicians see destruction as good because they are looking forward to Armageddon, which they believe will herald in God's rule. Crazy people who are unfit for high office - we have been complacent and careless to allow insane nincompoops to steer the ship.

This is how Armageddon and its paradise aftermath will realistically play out - when enough people are dead then the world will become a relative paradise for the remainders, which echoes the renaissance in Europe as soon as the Black Death cleared away the maddening crowds.

Nature has never been kind or pretty and that looks to remain the case for a while yet, with the eventual survivors thriving over the bones of those who fell.

[Nick_A]

Skip, how inhuman of you! Now if you were saying that all secularists should be killed ...

Meanwhile, Nick has a new flight of fancy as his much vaunted Great Beast morphs into The Great Machine, which will in turn be supplanted by the Great Network before coalescing into archangels and eventually God as it collapses into an ultramassive black hole beyond space and time ...

Levity aside, it's all moot anyway. Humans have not managed to adapt sufficiently for a "soft landing" with climate change, so now the world itself will control the world's population.

As resources diminish, with reduced arable land and habitable areas, there will be more conflict over what's left, leading to wars, famine and disease. That result has been locked in by our numbers and policies so all that remains is for it to play out. Note that many conservative theistic politicians see destruction as good because they are looking forward to Armageddon, which they believe will herald in God's rule. Crazy people who are unfit for high office - we have been complacent and careless to allow insane nincompoops to steer the ship.

This is how Armageddon and its paradise aftermath will realistically play out - when enough people are dead then the world will become a relative paradise for the remainders, which echoes the renaissance in Europe as soon as the Black Death cleared away the maddening crowds.

Nature has never been kind or pretty and that looks to remain the case for a while yet, with the eventual survivors thriving over the bones of those who fell.

Why would those be the choices? I'd rather decide for myself and let them decide for themselves.

Of course you would. So would everyone else. But people emotionally believe they deserve to live. Only a robot can convince them that they are now worthless to society and no longer deserve to live. I presume that you as an intelligent person would accept the impartial logic of these robots and enter the abortion chamber. it is the fair thing to do in response to the growing problem of over population.

[Skip]

Skip, how inhuman of you! Now if you were saying that all secularists should be killed ...

I'm okay with leaving all the faithfuls alone; just want to knock the influential props out from under them. Only the guilty, not the dupes.

Nature has never been kind or pretty and that looks to remain the case for a while yet, with the eventual survivors thriving over the bones of those who fell.

Yep. The ants will dine well.

[Skip]

[I'd rather decide for myself and let them decide for themselves.]
Of course you would. So would everyone else.

Good. We kill the ones who prevent us all making our own decisions, and ... https://www.google.com/search?q=the+wor ... refox-b-ab

But people emotionally believe they deserve to live.

What's deserving got to do with it? What's fairness got to do with it? Why are you harping on irrelevancies?
People should decide whether they reproduce - nobody forces them to make unwanted babies or takes away the means of birth control.
People should decide when they're ready to check out - nobody tells them it's a sin or forces them to lie around with tubes up their noses, babbling and drooling.
Keep your robots to yourself. Nobody needs them.

[Nick_A]

Skip

What's deserving got to do with it? What's fairness got to do with it? Why are you harping on irrelevancies?
People should decide whether they reproduce - nobody forces them to make unwanted babies or takes away the means of birth control.
People should decide when they're ready to check out - nobody tells them it's a sin or forces them to lie around with tubes up their noses, babbling and drooling.
Keep your robots to yourself. Nobody needs them.

Mothers decide which babies should live. Then when they get older murderers in society decide if they should be killed. Then they my be executed. If all this fails they may go to war to kill others and be killed. If that gets too complicated they may commit suicide. Wouldn't it make more sense if robots decided who should be killed and when you are no longer useful for society? This is the age of reason.
What could be more reasonable than for robots unmoved by emotion decide if you are worthy of life. Doesn't society deserve this consideration?

[Skip]

Mothers decide which babies should live.

Hardly ever. Famine decides. AIDS decides. Armies decide. Fat old men in distant rich countries decide.

Then when they get older murderers in society decide if they should be killed.

Huh? Everybody doesn't grow up to murderers, or we'd have no population explosion. Actually, we'd have no population, unless the last two murderers are male and female and still young enough.

Then they my be executed.

barely a drop in the ocean!

If all this fails they may go to war to kill others and be killed.

That's happened before, and we still have too many people.

Wouldn't it make more sense if robots decided who should be killed and when you are no longer useful for society?

You just can't get over this robot obsession, can you?

This is the age of reason.

You keep repeating this bit of horsepucky. Why?

What could be more reasonable than for robots unmoved by emotion decide if you are worthy of life. Doesn't society deserve this consideration?

Nope.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Mothers decide which babies should live.

Yet you think you should decide, some old kristian fuck who's probably only ever had sex with prostitutes.

[Nick_A]

Skip

N. What could be more reasonable than for robots unmoved by emotion decide if you are worthy of life. Doesn't society deserve this consideration?

S. Nope.

Now you've done it. You will earn the wrath of Greta. You suggest that cold hard logic may not be sufficient to solve the problem of over population. Emotional understanding may be essential to appreciate the value of life including the human obligation for sexual discrimination. A robot is incapable of emotional discrimination. The robot may reason but it cannot value. It lacks emotional respect for life. It cannot feel the value of the life cycle which spans conception to death. For us it is a quality we have as a conscious potential but as of now we will have to depend on disease, natural catastrophes, and wars to control population

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I don't know why anyone bothers interacting for more than one sentence with that slimy little creep ↑