Thinning the herd? If scientists determine that a 40% reduction in the human population is necessary to avoid ecological destruction, what do you think is the fairest way to determine who lives and who dies?

Best Answer

The fairest way is to make having children a privilege, not a right. We have already had to give up a lot of %26quot;rights%26quot;, which were turned into %26quot;privileges%26quot;, such as land development, water use, hunting or fishing, and now atmospheric emissions. If all those things can be regulated, so can having children. We can, for example, use %26quot;carbon rights%26quot; as a model for regulating childbirth, where only a certain number would be allowed per year, and everybody can either have one, or sell his/her rights to someone else. Right now, the concept seems so horrific to people, who have always believed that having unlimited children is one of the most fundamental God-given rights of mankind, but I trust that it won%26#039;t be long before the general population realize that overcrowding is running the planet down, and we have no alternative.

Addendum: Judging from all the thumbs down all the answerers are getting, I would say that to even think that population level should be controlled is an, well, unpopular idea.

Asker's Rating:

IMO, this is a very good response that presents a humanitarian argument while pointing out the great environmental concerns. Considering how grim the question is, I think I got an interesting variety of answers. Some are quite witty, and some are rather heartless. :)

Other Answers (16)

• Obviously the criminals, terrorists, and bad drivers decide because they are the ones killing everyone.
• Survival of the fittest is the only sustainable measure, Up the gas prices and decentralise, that would be a fair approximate model of the future we will have to be fit for.
• The ancients or pagan of thousands of years ago new that earths human population should not exceed 500 million the amount that is in perpetual balance with nature. Today the Illuminati have this population count as one of their 10 commandments. Google Georgia Stonehenge.
• I think the number is probably closer to 80% reduction in the human population.
  
  Draw straws...it is the fairest way...
• I beleive this has already been determined but nobody wants to step up and make it a law...Infact several years ago the United Nations said the maximum sustainable level is 5 Billion - we are currently over 6.5 Billion.
  
  First I would not nessecarily kill anyone - after all if you were born it wasnt your fault for that.. there is always a good number of people who would volunteer to be killed - those suffering in pain because the medical profession wont allow them to die..etc..
  
  ok then I would %26quot;Spay and Neuter%26quot; most of the rest.. we willingly control the growth of other populations and need to do the same with our own..
  
  if people didnt pass certain qualifications (eg. like dogs at a dog show) they wouldnt be allowed to breed.
  
  I would have 2 types of shows.. you would have to qualify enough points in either type to be allowed to breed.
  1. Conformation. Good teeth (no braces), Straight legs, spine, etc, no genetic health issues that will cost the health care system in the future
  2. Intelligence. If you are smart enough you can pass on those smart genes to your kids.
  
  all others would live but couldnt multiply.. or perhaps could have 1 kid then would face manditory sterilization.
  
  Myself.. I had 1 kid then had tubes tied.
• They should outlaw procreation. That would actually work good for me, because my fiancee wants 4 kids and I don%26#039;t want any. I%26#039;m even scared of the average.
• war: the only abattoir where the cows are expected to bury themselves ...
  
  or ...
  
  I pick who lives and who dies
  
  The scientists will probably use some form of Eugenics rather than letting natural selection take its course.
• In Japan, for every extra chiled they were taxed an additional $10,000 yen per kid each year. That%26#039;s on top of the taxes they already paid. They also placed a social stigma on a woman who had too many kids. Things like, no one would hire her because she%26#039;s so hard up for money.
  
  Now, Japan is in a population decline. The system worked so well and NO ONE had kids. Now they are trying to reverse that by giving financial rewards for parents who have children.
  
  You really can%26#039;t have it either way. The problem with trying to control population is that you can%26#039;t without having an uproar about the infringement on our rights.
  
  Take abortion for example. You could say that this method is a way of reducing the population - whether you think it%26#039;s right or not is besides the point. However, abortion rights is yet to be determined by law, there are loop holes, and it is always controversial or dangerous.
  
  I think the best way to avoid ecological destruction is for the government to regulate what the consumer can buy. Phase out light bulbs and nothing but CFLs. Allow only recycleable materials. Reward those who recycle and save and tax those who don%26#039;t. Or something on the lines of that.
  
  However, we would never see this because the government has placed so much red tape on themselves to get anything done, that nothing get%26#039;s done. The simplest thing takes years to go through.