On going Green....you fools Options

[Harlequin]

On Going Green.

I once posted that the global ecological problem was Heat rather than any other factor, but I’ve since thought more on the matter, and followed a particular chain of thought…it’s led to a nasty conclusion, and one that will no doubt offend.

We can cut back on oil, consume less wood, try and use more so called efficient lighting..we can even be silly and turn our lights off for an hour every so often, but it will avail NOTHING!
Not until we address the real problem. People. There are too many People.

Cut back the actual population globally and the whole ecological nightmare solves itself and a slew of other problems too into the bargain.

This attitude was addressed in a book by Heinlein ~ Time for the Stars. You could have one child per person by right, and the state would give much financial and social help. Free schooling, Health Care etc, but that third child per couple, well just get your hand in your pocket chum coz you ain’t getting zip for that one!
Not the fairest system, but it worked. Think about it.
It was a theme picked up by Larry Niven with the birthright lotteries; you could earn that third child. Perfect teeth, immune to cancer, longevity etc.

Humanity is not, repeat not and endangered species (yet|) nor is it likely to ever be one. We are told life is sacred, maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. I’m no judge of ethereal matters, but I know the planet would not miss 30% downsizing of humanity.

How we achieved this is a tricky question, and not one for a faint heart, but unless we look at cold hard fact…the loss sooner or later will be more than 30% and nature will be a lot more cruel and indiscriminate.




The Gauntlet is down......Fault me.

[Harlequin]

Day 1

[I am the devil]

Yes I think I would go as high 35 to 40% To thin down population It would have to be done world wide
we would have to stop aid to poor countries and disasters. let people die of the things thay like, Let people smoke drink and get fat.
maybe we need wars to thin us down a bit?
Pol Pot, 1.75m
Hitler 20,946,000
Mao 38m
Soviet Union 1917-1987 61,911,000

In all, estimates are about 174 million people were killed during incidents of democide in the 20th century, "of which communist regimes murdered about 148 million," "Communists overall have murdered four times those killed in combat."

[i am fire,fire,fire,fire]

And yet if you think Hitler was good your called Evil... But for Stalin

(note me no likey Hitler, me likey long time TT )

[Harlequin]

Day 2.

I'm afraid war is not the answer, nor are the losses by various weirdos, as overall the loss incurred by those elements was trivial.

Think bigger guys.

China tried, but was ridiculed by the world, yet they were on the right track with their one child policy.

The idea is reduce the consumption of resources without destroying the infrastructure in such ways as war and genocide.

I consider my thought of population curtailment still a valid one.

[i am fire,fire,fire,fire]

If you see many Dystopian movies you'll see how the cities have like 20 million residents or more (e.g. Judge Dredd).

[Harlequin]

If you see many Dystopian movies you'll see how the cities have like 20 million residents or more (e.g. Judge Dredd).

They never mention how they feed them...................

They are just movies...not real.

Keep trying.

[aboutblank1976]

If you see many Dystopian movies you'll see how the cities have like 20 million residents or more (e.g. Judge Dredd).

All with chronic pollution!

[I am the devil]

This may work

US military pondered love not war

The US military investigated building a "gay bomb", which would make enemy soldiers "sexually irresistible" to each other, government papers say.


The US defence department considered various non-lethal chemicals meant to disrupt enemy discipline and morale.

The plan for a so-called "love bomb" envisaged an aphrodisiac chemical that would provoke widespread homosexual behaviour among troops, causing what the military called a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale.

If this bomb could be used all over the world (except The UK because thats where I live) I think it
would cut down the number of babies born and population would slow down.

The idea is reduce the consumption of resources without destroying the infrastructure

On the down side the infrastructure would be safe but the would be a lot more gay bars and men in pink

[Harlequin]

Day 3

Still no opposition from people saying I'm wrong.

[aboutblank1976]

Erm..........must mean your right then?

[Harlequin]

Erm..........must mean your right then?

I'm waiting for someone to tell me I'm wrong...seriously...I'd LOVE to be wrong.

[Norfolk Rob]

In principle HQ your argument seems to be sound.

However the actual management of it would have profound implications.

Presumably you'd need to sterilise couples after they've concieved one child. What if they refused? What if the sterilisation didn't work and they had a second child? What if it they went underground and people had 'secret' second children? What if one sex were more valuable to a couple than another?

I guess to address all these arguments you'd say that the Chinese experience proves it can be done. But in China it caused emotional distress, an unbalanced gender growth and lots of unborn and already born babies to suffer a premature death.

Unless you can think of another method of popualtion control I'd rather keep my recycling bin full and keep my faith in the agitators at the Green Party

[Harlequin]

In principle HQ your argument seems to be sound.

However the actual management of it would have profound implications.

Presumably you'd need to sterilise couples after they've concieved one child. What if they refused? What if the sterilisation didn't work and they had a second child? What if it they went underground and people had 'secret' second children? What if one sex were more valuable to a couple than another?

I guess to address all these arguments you'd say that the Chinese experience proves it can be done. But in China it caused emotional distress, an unbalanced gender growth and lots of unborn and already born babies to suffer a premature death.

Unless you can think of another method of popualtion control I'd rather keep my recycling bin full and keep my faith in the agitators at the Green Party

I'm keeping the count going Rob, but you nearly stopped it with the implications of how to ensure people didn't just continue with childbirth.

It would become socially unacceptable after a generation or so to have children that -dare I say it- "didn't belong"...and you could impose stiff fiscal penalties as regards paying for the childs education and health care. I doubt steralisation would be needed with free contraception for both male and female.
I freely admit that a drastic change of thinking is needed, and harsh measures possibly too. Dirty jobs are often the most important jobs.

It's no use making more efficient cars if you are just going to produce more of them. You are just canceling out the lower emissions by doubling the cars on the road.

It's no use building houses out of renewable materials, if you swallow up the land needed to grow the renewable materials.

The cry of "USE LESS!" is silly if you let more and more and more arrive to consume.


We need to change our thinking as humans.

Day 4....and I continue my search for why I'm wrong.

[i am fire,fire,fire,fire]

Well HQ its brings the question of MURDER TO NOT MURDER,

But a implication/benefit of this could be the death of a historically important person. E.G. Another Einstein or a Hitler/Stalin.

A question i got off Star trek