The mass extermination of humans to maintain acceptable standards of living (3 Viewers)

[Jazuzi]

I agree with this too, because a lot of ULTIMATE GOVERNMENT POLICY is kind of like that little nice boy at the pub with a complex - "I'm going to hit you. Nah, I seriously fucking will. I'm going to so hit you. With my fury, I'm going to throw so many punches and launch PUNISHMENT into your gentle face", and he dances and he sobs and he dances a bit more and he's talking to a wall because his victim has long left to do heroin with strippers.

huh

 

[ministoj]

Pretty much no one is going to stop being a dole bludger until they fear the consequences .. which right now they dont . most dont even think are doing any damage .

The ultimate humane/ethical solution i saw on Stargate .. transfer their conciousness into a virtual reality world and let them live their life there.

 

[ministoj]

Why not get the drug-dependant to create this virtual world?

It will be like a rediculous science grant, except the BEST of the BEST will be working on it, the space cadets who have traded their minds for the PIN code. They truly are the complete set of synapse connections, some will not be able to get off the floor, some will yell at a moose, but maybe, if it exists .. ONE will invent something... - the ones who transcend space and time for a living should be filling this gap of nonsense, not the textbook reading confident speakers who present well in an interview about quantum theory.

Hurt my mind reading that ?

 

[ministoj]

Go back to The Hobbit by J.R.R Tolkien.
You should be at ease by sunrise.

I'd rather wait for the movie to come out .

 

[runoutofsleep]

yeah misistoj you make a lot of sense

using a stargate to transfer the consciousness of dole bludgers to another universe is the ideal social policy i agree

however it might be expensive?

maybe we should just give them heroin?

just an idea what do you think

 

[ministoj]

using a stargate to transfer the consciousness of dole bludgers to another universe is the ideal social policy i agree

however it might be expensive?

Theres a possiblity that the savings of not having to pay the dole would exceed the expense of Stargate travel .

 

[runoutofsleep]

get the productivity commission on this stat

 

[funkshen]

Ministoj I'd like a prototype on my desk by Monday.

I'd like to see Kevin Rudd pass the Stargate bill through the Senate.

 

[funkshen]

Also use a serif font.

 

[ministoj]

Sure ill get my once dole bludging secretary who has been forced to work under this policy to type it up .

 

[DNETTZ]

i'd just like to point something out abut the whole one child policy thing.

the effects wouldn't be immediate but as a result of a one child policy there would be a rapid rise in labour shortages. so i think you should find a balance and not go the full one child thing because there is not point in decreasing population growth, if there isn't enough people left to gather resources for the rest of the population. I think that made sense XD

It does, but i think that a slight labour shortage is far less important than saving a couple of billion people. Assuming this problem's coming in as fast as you reckon it is, the balance here is life and death.
People can live simply so that others can simply live.
Oh, and, about the pensioners who they'll be supporting, the pensioners can move into administration. They do nothing anyway and probably have a better work ethic . My point being we should make them work in places that are easy but whippersnappers work there anyway.

Oh, and about the nuke question someone posed. WTH, explain!

 

[DNETTZ]

Right so dole bludgers and the like are innocent and aren't doing any harm to our economy . They think its cool to relax while other people work and pay taxes for them . Oh but they shouldnt be killed .. coz that would be soo wrong .

Corrrect, we dont kill them but transfer them to work camps like the Abbott Ideal.
All heil Herr Abbott and his concentration camps for dole blugders! Renounce your bludging ways and join the rest of Australia who work for their money!

 

[scuba_steve2121]

It does, but i think that a slight labour shortage is far less important than saving a couple of billion people. Assuming this problem's coming in as fast as you reckon it is, the balance here is life and death.
People can live simply so that others can simply live.
Oh, and, about the pensioners who they'll be supporting, the pensioners can move into administration. They do nothing anyway and probably have a better work ethic . My point being we should make them work in places that are easy but whippersnappers work there anyway.

Oh, and about the nuke question someone posed. WTH, explain!

i would still be very concerned if the policy was to be implemented. in 30 years after implementation the labour shortages would be fucking insane. plus i think old people wouldn't want to be put in administration u know they retired for a reason?

Corrrect, we dont kill them but transfer them to work camps like the Abbott Ideal.
All heil Herr Abbott and his concentration camps for dole blugders! Renounce your bludging ways and join the rest of Australia who work for their money!

just scrap the dole, don't need concentration camps which are just as immoral as the dole itself

 

[DNETTZ]

i would still be very concerned if the policy was to be implemented. in 30 years after implementation the labour shortages would be fucking insane. plus i think old people wouldn't want to be put in administration u know they retired for a reason?
just scrap the dole, don't need concentration camps which are just as immoral as the dole itself

On the first point, in line with the topic we're discussing, would you rather some minor concerns about some old people bumbling around and a few people who cant find work or scorched earth with countless murders committed in the name of continueing to run the world off a cliff, as well as the unemployed as a result of the anarchy that would follow an en-mass extermination?

You can have your concerns, but there would surely be more pressing concerns if we destroyed half the world when we could simply do something rational (costly, as the nature of the hole we've dug for ourselves is). Who cares about the old people, we can build robots and shit, increase effeciency, look after them more effectively, etc, that aint what we're debating.

I think this solution is better than the nuke the world/exterminate exterminate/dont let idiots breed solution. So as concerned as you may be, at least the people keep living, producing, loving... [insert heartfelt dialogue]. And more importantly, you adapt and develop techs rather than pressing the reset button straight out.

Although i like the 'dont let idiots' breed solution!

 

[DNETTZ]

And who cares about acceptable living standards? The living of as many as possible and saving as many immediatly overrides any concerns about you being able to run your hummer for the next 50 years. We can save them then cut down and solve the problem.
On a moral, predcedential and logical ground, it makes sense to save the humans.

Labour shortages;
You gotta create those solar panels somehow and get that dirt outta the ground. If we're gonna go from oil-nuclear or our next power source we gotta SOURCE the power from someting. That should last 10-20 years. By then you'll be seeing the back end of the labour and the aging population. Robots can look after them. we can get effecient at looking after them and other shit like that. Its not an issue because hopefully the undertakings in the process of getting there solve the problmem

Oil/Fertilisers ;
Plunder Antartica for the last oil and use that under government control to switch to something else (like volcanic fertilizers). [Ignore corruption of point, this is rather illthoughtout. Go see the intelligentia about this] Or, just use fish as a new livestock, as the ocean is infinitly arable for farming kelp/cod/salmon etc. Civilisation based around seafood *stomach grumbles*

Peeeeennnnnissssss;
Self explantatory, im too young for seriousness.

 

[abbeyroad]

Except that Hitler's "thing" involved mass extermination but also the encouraging of an extremely high birthrate (8+ kids got you a gold Mothers' Cross) as part of his Aryan population initiative. So you've still got a large population in that scenario, they're just comfortably blond and blue-eyed.


ETA

+1 lol.

bby wut do u look like I'm gonna come stalk you at usyd

 

[abbeyroad]

And who cares about acceptable living standards? The living of as many as possible and saving as many immediatly overrides any concerns about you being able to run your hummer for the next 50 years. We can save them then cut down and solve the problem.
On a moral, predcedential and logical ground, it makes sense to save the humans.

Labour shortages;
You gotta create those solar panels somehow and get that dirt outta the ground. If we're gonna go from oil-nuclear or our next power source we gotta SOURCE the power from someting. That should last 10-20 years. By then you'll be seeing the back end of the labour and the aging population. Robots can look after them. we can get effecient at looking after them and other shit like that. Its not an issue because hopefully the undertakings in the process of getting there solve the problmem

Oil/Fertilisers ;
Plunder Antartica for the last oil and use that under government control to switch to something else (like volcanic fertilizers). [Ignore corruption of point, this is rather illthoughtout. Go see the intelligentia about this] Or, just use fish as a new livestock, as the ocean is infinitly arable for farming kelp/cod/salmon etc. Civilisation based around seafood *stomach grumbles*

Peeeeennnnnissssss;
Self explantatory, im too young for seriousness.

lol lol so you're saying that humans should just plunder plunder and plunder some more to survive instead of embracing the final solution?

humans are the cancer that's killing earth and you just drove the point home.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

Humanities arch Nemesis is itself.

You can't Nuke these problems away (many issues already explained). You can't execute mass amounts of people in hopes of salvation.

Ultimately we will destroy ourselves no matter the action taken. It is in our history, it is what we seem to be programmed to do.

You can simply prolong humanities prosperity but in doing so, due to our self-imposed moral systems, will create global regret, global unease and global terror at facing the inevitable. The world would be in a state of self-imposed torture.

If the human race becomes extinct, does it really matter? Think about it. In the scheme of the universe, does it matter? We won't be remembered. Our own dead often aren't remembered past two generations. We are but a microscopic spec on an immeasurably huge ass.

If doomsday comes, so be it, it will wipe the plague that is our race from history.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

On the first point, in line with the topic we're discussing, would you rather some minor concerns about some old people bumbling around and a few people who cant find work or scorched earth with countless murders committed in the name of continueing to run the world off a cliff, as well as the unemployed as a result of the anarchy that would follow an en-mass extermination?

You can have your concerns, but there would surely be more pressing concerns if we destroyed half the world when we could simply do something rational (costly, as the nature of the hole we've dug for ourselves is). Who cares about the old people, we can build robots and shit, increase effeciency, look after them more effectively, etc, that aint what we're debating.

I think this solution is better than the nuke the world/exterminate exterminate/dont let idiots breed solution. So as concerned as you may be, at least the people keep living, producing, loving... [insert heartfelt dialogue]. And more importantly, you adapt and develop techs rather than pressing the reset button straight out.

Although i like the 'dont let idiots' breed solution!

I'm not saying people can't find work I'm saying the opposite there is not enough people to work. imagine 30-40 years of that policy food production would be almost halved. nobody would be able to afford food as prices sore.

yea robots.... its called capital......and you still need somebody to maintain and run them. out country is hugely capital intensive if half the workforce just suddenly disappeared you would have half of the current technology we use just sitting there not being used. and as i already said huge price rises and massive shortages on all fronts.

what gives you the right to tell somebody who they can and can't breed with. if this policy were to be implemented you can bet your lucky stars you would be on that list the way you are talking. now how would you feel about that?

and who is going to adapt and develop these techs hmm? scientists and engineers are always behind with the adverse effects of government policy. they won't be able to adapt fast enough especially is half of the work force suddenly dissapears.

seroiusly who are these 'angels' that are going to some how fix the problems of a massive labour shortage, what 'angels' are going to magically build these super effiecent robots when we can't even get any where close making them now?

the outcomes of government policy especially on this level will always be bad. and if you tried to implement them, this 'scored earth' and countless murders you speak of, it would come a lot faster with the kind of crap you want to try.

 

[Teclis]

And who cares about acceptable living standards? The living of as many as possible and saving as many immediatly overrides any concerns about you being able to run your hummer for the next 50 years. We can save them then cut down and solve the problem.
On a moral, predcedential and logical ground, it makes sense to save the humans.

Labour shortages;
You gotta create those solar panels somehow and get that dirt outta the ground. If we're gonna go from oil-nuclear or our next power source we gotta SOURCE the power from someting. That should last 10-20 years. By then you'll be seeing the back end of the labour and the aging population. Robots can look after them. we can get effecient at looking after them and other shit like that. Its not an issue because hopefully the undertakings in the process of getting there solve the problmem

Oil/Fertilisers ;
Plunder Antartica for the last oil and use that under government control to switch to something else (like volcanic fertilizers). [Ignore corruption of point, this is rather illthoughtout. Go see the intelligentia about this] Or, just use fish as a new livestock, as the ocean is infinitly arable for farming kelp/cod/salmon etc. Civilisation based around seafood *stomach grumbles*

Peeeeennnnnissssss;
Self explantatory, im too young for seriousness.

I REALLY want to hit you...

The ocean is not infinitely arable fool.

The fish have still gotta make babies...

Haven't you ever heard of over fishing?