Maybe we should just start nuking the most densely packed cities/countries. Sorry NYC, Tokyo, and basically all of India.
But would this not solve the problem?
I mean, nuking? That ain’t exactly going to fix anything.
Like, the whole idea is bad, but dropping nukes is it’s own environmental disaster as bad or worse than global warming.
Even using conventional munitions is going to cause fires and literal megatons of debris to be released into the atmosphere and water. This ain’t going to fix anything.
It also assumes that population control is the fix in the first place, and it isn’t. The population levels would only shift the speed of change, not the fact of it. To stop or reverse the changes, you have to change the underlying cause of the change, which is pretty much down to industrial processes across multiple areas, including agriculture.
Yeah, you kill off enough people, industrial efforts might cease, but it’s more likely that the remaining people are going to have to rely on the most effective methods to stay alive and functional, rather than the methods that are environmentally best.
The problem to this solution is who chooses the humans. The only moral way would be to accept volunteers.
Thats easy. Smokers. They die first. If they are willing to accept that they’re using products that give people cancer, they die first.
I didn’t agree to smoke cigerettes. Or vapes. Or cigars. Yet I have to smell cigerettes everyday, because they don’t care if they give you cancer.
First to die.
That’s easy. People who wish others to die. They die first. If they are willing to accept sacrificing others, they die first.
I didn’t agree to die. Or to be killed. Or murdered. Yet I have to be executed all the same, because they don’t care if you die or not.
First to die.
Or to start with the wealthiest people and biggest corporations.
Username checks out.
Good answer! Nuking ruins valuable resources, like plants that help reduce greenhouse gases, and animals that help ecosystems thrive.
What we need is some sort of pandemic, that targets the especially stupid (refusing to take protectionary precautions, idiotically increasing their risk of exposure). It’s hard to go without also catching people with comorbidities in the net, but acceptable losses, I guess.
If only there was such a disease…
If you find a GoFundMe for this, let me know.
The one child policy as was imposed in China is the most drastic that is ethically tolerable.
And, lack of resources will soon enough convince people to make less children.
You don’t have to kill yourself today because you may die in 50 years - - this is blindingly obvious.I don’t think limited resources ever results in reduced births. 100 years ago, US parents were making lots of kids and not naming them for the first year because infant mortality was so high. Education is what slows the birthrate.
You are right that it happened in the past and it still happens in many countries today : without education we are going toward disaster.
But i was trying to have a somewhat optimistic view and if you consider China’s one child policy it necessitated more education but this policy was sparked by a lack of resources.
We could find more examples where education combine with lack of resources would go the way i was saying.I suppose with global education on the rise, prior examples won’t always be accurate. I wasn’t considering China’s example to be part of an increased education amount because it didn’t necessarily teach the average citizen why they should limit kids, but a governing decision that results in the same outcome could still count.
Bill Burr said we should start sinking cruise ships.
Nice try, ChatGPT
OP convenient that your living location isn’t on the list. Maybe start looking inward? If you remove 2/3 of your mass you’d be doing your part, right?
I know the name of the community is “no stupid questions”, but you managed to power through somehow anyway
An excellent trolling if ever I’ve seen one
🧌
i have observed that many people interpret the community title as a dare
If I’m really honest I often feel that way about the questions here. I suspect that most of us are here just to gawk at how truly stupid some of us are.
Logically, killing humans would be way down on the list of potential Global Warming solutions. We would have to exhaust all other methods first. Just banning private vehicles would save a few billion from extermination. Green energy tech and Nuclear power would save more. Vegetarian diets even more. Reducing organic waste, involuntary birth control, carbon sequestration - it’s a long list of better incremental solutions. They may be more costly than extermination, but they’re infinitely more ethical. It’s only logical if that’s the sole solution that ensures some of the population survives. We’re a long way from that condition.
“… involuntary birth control …”
We are the only two contributors here rising this topic. How do you see it ?
Please also read my root comment.I see it as one possibility of many. Measures currently employed are limited because most countries are democratic, where politicians must appease the people to stay in office. China could implement one-child because they are a de-facto dictatorship.
oh 2/3s will die just not by humanity hands directly. heat, extreme weather, more pandemics. it’s all coming earth will get it’s payment in blood.
If people who hunt with population control as the excuse were logically consistent then they’d say yes
Nuking wouldn’t really be the way to go, it’ll destroy the world in other ways.
I actually think this could work with one important adjustment.
We should probably start with the people who think that killing off large portions of the population is a great idea and stop once we run out of those people.
