A solution to poverty and overpopulation!!
“Mr. President, we need a solution to end with poverty and overpopulation in our country!”
“Easy. Kill every poor person there is.”
Yeah, I know it’s kind of a dumb question…
But, assuming you wouldn’t do it, why wouldn’t you?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
There isn’t a problem with overpopulation. If anything the Earths growth will probably slow down quite dramatically by 2050.
Poverty can be fixed easily. But too many rich people would probably have a thing or two to say about that.
I think there is a population problem and I think that making people pass a parent competency test after having 1 child should be mandatory so the certification could go on to say only if you are wealthy and established AND competent, can you have more then one child. The world would be a lovely fucking place :)
The thing is, anyone’s wealth can change. A person may become rich, and by their own choices or by circumstances beyond their control, they may again become poor. And rich again, and poor again, etc. The point is, no one’s economic situation is necessarily, absolutely, 100% fixed in any direction. So would a rich person then who advocates killing the poor (as some surely do) up and march themselves off to the gas chamber when their fortunes take a turn for the worse? I think not.
Poverty has the potential to become anyone’s problem, it’s not just for “dumb people” or people “unfit to survive”. Anyone poor can become rich, and anyone rich can become poor, and so on and so forth. I have a pretty good feeling that the OP was merely asking this question for the sake of asking the question…..but there are unfortunately people in this world who sincerely believe this. That’s what I don’t understand, because I don’t think they would kill themselves if they became poor. It’s hypocrisy.
@alexunknown, “Easy. Kill every poor person there is.” I’m saying that realistically, you can’t go out and start methodically culling the population like that.
The most realistic method to “kill every poor person there is” would be to send them to war. A paltry little international conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq wouldnt be enough to eliminate a number of people on the kind of scale that (I think) you’re talking about–you’d need a war of a much grander scale…eg World War III.
Either that or I completely misinterpreted what you meant by “Easy. Kill every poor person there is.”
@alexunknown, Well there is a solution. The countries that have the highest levels of self-sufficiency (I mean as far as people are productive and appart from the interdependance we all have within society on each other, they generally provide for themselves with their compensation for contribution) these countries also have the lowest population growth, some even have negative population growth.
All the poverty stricken nations of the world have out of control population growths. The main reason is in education, people with a quality education tend to become independant free thinkers who consider what they want and have to provide for, and basically what children are going to cost them to provide a life and education that is responsible of them to provide.
A way to do all this, get all these people a decent education and the opportunities to put that education to work, is to get all the business, companies, corporations, industries etc, to invest in providing it. This makes sense because when all these poverty people become productive they attain the kind of money to start spending, and all the business that invested now has a larger consumer base to make even more money from.
The problem with this idea is that the business’ will not volunteer for this, despite what they would gain from doing it, they do not want to spend money if they can do nothing, but it is done by a bunch of other business’, then they will gain from the larger consumer base anyway and not spend a cent.
The only thing to do, as it would be in the vein of communist dictatorship to make laws and force the business to do it, the only real option is to organize consumerism, set up a strategic buying network. If it trends and you get millions of people actively involved in boycotting inconsiderate business’, then business’ start to realize they are losing profits and will continue to lose them as the movement grows, they will realize it is fiscally responsible to be socially responsible, the sacrifice for investing in social programs would then be less than what they are losing in customers.
Studies show that the poor are more empathetic than the rich, so getting the rich to cooperate won’t be easy.
Extra planetary colonization would provide a solid solution.
A more humane version of eugenics would work too, but that method would require messing around with evolution, which is like playing with fire.
@staylucky, well, one where you were the Mr. President having a second thought about it, considering overpopulation exists and poverty is pretty strong in your country. More of a detailed process of your moral, ethical thinking in case you were against this decision… And having myself a second thought, the case where you decided that would be ok, I think your answer would be entertaining too!
Let’s say your country’s head actually decided to kill every poor person there is. How would you manifest against it if you weren’t agree with it, or how would you show your support for it if you were agree with it? What would your speech or your reasons to let it or not happen??
Easy, stop sharing the planet irrationally, and let all nations do as they will. Let nature take its course with our planet and do what is necessary for nations. They ought to, for instance, expand and contract according to their needs and desires (yes, that means EXPANDING is necessary).
@alexunknown, because someone always has to poor. I think that if everyone in poverty was gone, the lower-middle class would become the new group of impoverished people. The market would eventually adjust so that we would still be stuck with the same problem of poverty in our society. The only way to fix this would be by redistributing the wealth so everyone had an even share, but this would never happen because of humans’ ambition/greed. Also, were the wealth redistributed so everyone always was equal, people would, I believe, not have enough incentive to work their hardest. It’s impossible to find a system where everyone would be incentivized to work their hardest without giving some people more than others, and by giving some more than others, we will always have a system where some people are in poverty.
@liammcfeely, I agree that there will always be a “poor” population, the people with the least. But I think what we’re discussing here is that that lowest income level should not be struggling to eat and for medicine and such. I think it’s less concern for equal classes, and more concern for people being able to have a secure lifestyle.
@trek79, Cutting even more? Europe and the US are offshoring their jobs already since years to India and China, meaning a big shift in not only white collar jobs, but also blue collar workers now working in India for a five time less salary than in the Western World, or in fabrics in China where workers earn 1 to 2 dollars a day.
We do not want to live without poverty, because that means that we would give up on all the luxury we have right now!
Please people, do not be so ignorant and naive! Poverty is what makes your lives so fucking comfortable!
@neith, We went through a big surge the last century or so, but gender equality has meant that a lot of women are not marrying or having children anymore (or at least not pumping out families of 3-6 kids), so most first world countries are starting to see their numbers slow down.
One of the biggest contributors towards poverty (ironically enough) is most charities. Natives of war-torn or poverty stricken countries have little urge to stay and use any qualifications they might earn because a) They can make a life for themselves somewhere that they have always dreamed of and b) most charities do little to solve any problems. They just allow the people to rest on them without actually looking at ways to keep nationals with degrees there and to invest.
And whoever mentioned something about forfeiting benefits to end poverty, as a middle to high class citizen, I would.
@everymorningbornfromtheashes, Don’t think I would ever agree with that, that is what Nazi’s and bat shit crazy dictators do. I do agree that some people aren’t suitable candidates for parenthood but you cannot legislate testicles, ovaries and wombs.
@alexunknown, America, I’m assuming that is where your from from the “Mr. President” bit, does not have an overpopulation problem, a wealth distribution problem perhaps. The world also does not have a overpopulation problem, just a population distribution problem. I couldn’t care less what population or poverty problems countries like the USA, Canada, Australia or European states think they have, because when you look at Africa or India it is not important. The real question should be “Mr. President what are you going to do for the third world”.
P.s. if the US introduced a decent social welfare system they would greatly improve the situation of it’s lower classes and bring a shitload of people over the poverty line.
I find it hilarious how the US pretends to have these ridiculous rules around border control between them and Mexico when in reality a good portion of their economy relies on the work of illegal immigrants (and they are very much aware of this as well).
The big companies, corporations and industries know all too well that if they automate they can cut at least 50% of the global work force, they could save a mint on wages but most of those people are what make up the middle class and that is the largest and most profitable consumer base. Automation is a catch 22 situation.
@filipek, That’s a good point and it adds to my main point, with automation and off-shoring jobs, this system cannot be sustained. It may actually come to a massive culling of human beings or a simple change in how it is done, but any real economic change negates all the wealth accumulated by the elite, and renders all the damage made in that persuit as done for nothing.
What really makes more sense? Doing things right by humanity or doing things right by the people who offer you a life in their world?
@alexunknown, It wouldn’t be governments who would do it. Governments have only been a front for a long time, a pacifier that makes the public think they are relevant so they don’t decend into anarchy before the real power is ready, before they really have nothing to fear. The fact that the moment hasn’t come yet only tells us they are not ready yet and the public still have a chance. The thing is that most people are too apathetic to care, they don’t even listen to people who tell them they are about to be shafted by a 12 inch strap-on.