Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cull the Herd

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    recedite wrote: »
    That would help, but Catholics are not the worst. Italy where the Pope lives is well below replacement rate.
    Syria; population in 1970 was 6.3M but by 2010 was 21M.
    Iraq; population in 1970 was 9.9M but by 2010 was 31M.
    Somalia; population in 1970 was 3.4M but by 2010 was 12M
    Nigeria; population in 1970 was 55M but by 2010 was 158M

    Globally, the average Christian fertility rate is 2.7 children per woman, which is higher than the global average fertility rate of 2.5.

    According to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, there were 2.19 billion Christians around the world in 2010, more than three times as many as the 600 million recorded in 1910. Catholics in Italy, like in Ireland, are not likely to heed the Popes rules on contraception, but it is in Catholic parts of the third world where lack of contraception is causing unnecessary population growth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,473 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Limit child benefits to 3 (Round up the 2.xx replacement rate) in Ireland, and stop foreign aid both governmental (could also remove charity statue from private groups).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Are you five O?

    Are you a doctor?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Are there too many people in the world? Or do you think there will be? They predict almost 10 billion people will be on the Earth by 2050 and over 11 billion by 2100. Can we continue to produce enough food to feed everyone? Natural resources running low? At some stage, a decision might have to be made on culling the herd.
    Would you be in favour of culling the herd and who do you think should be culled and how would we reach a fair decision on it? I think rapists and murderers lives might be in danger. Each country could offer up their own to save themselves. After this, we could still have too many. There might be a vote on which nation gets wiped out.
    It's horrendous to think we could sink to this level but it's possible. Do you think many would vote for us? We're great so probably not. Not saying anything anti British but they would be one of the favourites to top the vote. They've a history of wiping out millions of people so it could be seen as only right that they reap what they sowed.
    Who would you vote for if it came to it? What do you think is going to happen when the population grows to over 11 billion? Do you like brown sauce on your sandwiches? Are you going to choose me for culling?


    We've been doing it for thousands of years. We're doing it right now.
    We've tried genocide many times before it never seems to halt the population growth.

    Its not edgy to talk like this. It just shows your naivety.

    Culling of humans has been going on and is going on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭micky jammy delahunty


    You know.....National governments are allowed do with the Common Agricultural Policy payments as they like (don't be fooled by the representatives of you know who.)....And with technological developments, a true medium sized farm should only be about 40,000 acres, run efficiently like Ryan Air...not the grossly inefficient average 40 acres we have in Ireland.

    With the right combination of historical events....We could keep the CAP payments, which are well over 30 billion, and have a highly profitable agricultural sector. It would be like discovering oil under a gold mine.

    But, we must start by asking difficult questions....We must ask the question that many fear to speak....The Culchee question.....We have to start asking ourselves this question...and how it will be answered.....we cannot go on living as we are.....Can we survive subsidising these reservations, or must we look manifest destiny in the face...and make the difficult decisions our children will understand and thank us for.....Or will we not....and our children view our weakness with betrayal and disgust...


    Roscommon ....would be a good place to begin, the building of a new Ireland...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭Farawayhome


    We've been doing it for thousands of years. We're doing it right now.
    We've tried genocide many times before it never seems to halt the population growth.

    Its not edgy to talk like this. It just shows your naivety.

    Culling of humans has been going on and is going on.

    And it's mentioned in my post. Comprehension fail! :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,724 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    bazz26 wrote: »
    Don't worry, we are well due another big war or natural catastrophe.

    According to Sky News tonight the US and Iran are on course for a summer showdown so we might get that cull sooner rather than later.


  • Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭micky jammy delahunty


    bilston wrote: »
    According to Sky News tonight the US and Iran are on course for a summer showdown so we might get that cull sooner rather than later.

    Don't get your hopes up...If there's a war, they won't be dancing fat rural American Trump voters into the Iranian guns....They have the same problem in America as we have here...The same problem


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,636 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Your Face wrote: »
    Who gets to decide who goes?

    Maybe those who propose such measures should lead by example.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Colette Shaggy Muffin


    janfebmar wrote: »
    Globally, the average Christian fertility rate is 2.7 children per woman, which is higher than the global average fertility rate of 2.5.

    According to a 2011 Pew Research Center survey, there were 2.19 billion Christians around the world in 2010, more than three times as many as the 600 million recorded in 1910. Catholics in Italy, like in Ireland, are not likely to heed the Popes rules on contraception, but it is in Catholic parts of the third world where lack of contraception is causing unnecessary population growth.

    Not sure what the actual ratio of RCC attendees is across sub-saharan Africa and the Middle East, but could well be a minority compared to the other main alternative skygod followers in those two regions, where populaitons are gowing about +5% pa avg.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    recedite wrote: »
    Here's the real problem.
    People in countries that already have a declining population, agonising about overpopulation in the world.
    Meanwhile people in other countries with no interest in such matters breeding like rabbits.
    More to do with lack of education/access to contraception than lack of interest. I'd say they'd be keen on a way to have less mouths to feed.


  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    wakka12 wrote: »
    We will never 'cull' humans,
    we always have done so, and we will do it again. It's now a question of whether, but of when.

    I agree with the gun nuts on one thing: a tyranny will establish itself in North America within our lifetimes, or the next. The gun nuts thinks it will be a leftist tyranny, but left or right scarcely mean anything when you start to put people into ovens, or eradicate them with whatever technology is at your disposal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    If every couple in the world just had 2 kids the population of the world would decline in a steady and sustainable way.

    I'd say in the next 10/15 years this will become "A Thing"
    IE: It'll frowned on if you have more than 2 kids.

    Maybe they should only offer children's allowance for a Max of 2 kids?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    ... main alternative skygod ...

    So many invisible skylords. And yet not one of them decent enough to step in and fix this sheet for us. Too busy doing their nails, up there in the sky.

    I liked that Yahweh guy. When he smited the Babylonians that time, they stayed smote.




  • topper75 wrote: »

    I liked that Yahweh guy. When he smited the Babylonians that time, they stayed smote.

    Like in the song "By the rivers of Babylon"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Are you a doctor?

    Is this your Da?

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0L87JpQmGzBQt3oieXorGmQDZJyhKrhsiecyZ7Pz1d_YHVt-k


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Colette Shaggy Muffin


    grahambo wrote: »
    Maybe they should only offer children's allowance for a Max of 2 kids?

    Likely already on the cards (by the way of {adult} UBI).
    The bowl of soup will be 'Universal' no matter who it's for.

    Seperately, surprised no ones mentioned the Georgia Guidestones:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
    1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
    2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
    3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
    4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
    5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
    6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
    7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
    8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
    9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
    10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Do you not think that we'd want to keep the British considering that they invented nearly everything of note for over 200 yrs.

    What's the use in getting rid of the top echelon. It makes no sense from a natural standpoint.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    More to do with lack of education/access to contraception than lack of interest. I'd say they'd be keen on a way to have less mouths to feed.
    No, that's not it. There's a couple of reasons.

    The religious one; both Christaianity and Islam very much in favour of increasing numbers.

    But also the practical one. In third world countries they have a lot of kids, but they invest very little in their kids. Its a bit like buying lotto tickets. More tickets improves your odds. The hope is that at least one of them will do well, maybe even make it to a wealthy country and send back some money. Others might not do well, or even die. Its important to plan for old age when there is no pension and you rely on your relatives for food.


    In the west, kids cost you a lot of money to raise, and you'll still get your pension whether you have kids or not. In fact your pension will probably be better without kids, because more time was available to be spent on career and work.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,439 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Likely already on the cards (by the way of {adult} UBI).
    The bowl of soup will be 'Universal' no matter who it's for.

    Seperately, surprised no ones mentioned the Georgia Guidestones:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
    1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
    2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
    3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
    4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
    5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
    6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
    7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
    8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
    9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
    10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

    3 - 10 sound like sensible well-meaning policies. 1 is essentially advocating a mass die-off, and 2 is promoting eugenics. Eugenics is a flawed concept as it is evolution guided by humans rather than nature. Nature is impartial and without ego in deciding what gets to survive. Humans not so much. Eugenics is humans deciding they know better than nature, but not stopping to consider that eliminating a 'defect' in people may have implications they can barely begin to predict of understand.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Colette Shaggy Muffin


    briany wrote: »
    3 - 10 sound like sensible well-meaning policies. 1 is essentially advocating a mass die-off, and 2 is promoting eugenics. Eugenics is a flawed concept as it is evolution guided by humans rather than nature. Nature is impartial and without ego in deciding what gets to survive. Humans not so much. Eugenics is humans deciding they know better than nature, but not stopping to consider that eliminating a 'defect' in people may have implications they can barely begin to predict of understand.

    No idea who made America's stonehenge, googlebot suggests it was the Free people that wear the aprons and so on, betting money would be on that Soro chap.

    Regards Eugenics, the stones stand proud in Georgia, since '79, where this week saw the new “heartbeat bill” that bans any abortion after six weeks.

    Not to worry the Amazon lad worth about a billion times another billion more dolla', says there plenty of room up in space for a trillion lads and lassies. He has free tickets once the big rocket is ready to lift off.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    briany wrote: »
    1 is essentially advocating a mass die-off, and 2 is promoting eugenics. Eugenics is a flawed concept as it is evolution guided by humans rather than nature.
    1. Everybody dies. All it means is less people being born per year than die, for a while. That's already happening in most western and east asian countries (eg Japan).
    2. We have already entered the age of eugenics. And its good.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,439 ✭✭✭✭briany


    recedite wrote: »
    1. Everybody dies. All it means is less people being born per year than die, for a while. That's already happening in most western and east asian countries (eg Japan).
    2. We have already entered the age of eugenics. And its good.

    The birth rate remains quite robust in poorer countries, and the overall human population is still increasing. Until people around the world enjoy similar standards of living, education and cultural attitudes, this is a trend I don't see exactly reversing. The result being that I can't see a massive reduction in the human population being brought about by anything other than painful means, being that a cull, environmental crises or strictly-enforced population quotas.

    I was talking about eugenics more in the sense of choosing who lives, dies, or doesn't get to reproduce. I could never argue with a smiling mother who's ecstatic that her child doesn't have to suffer. That will always be a wonderful development. On a more macro scale, however, I was wondering since human kind has never evolved things like handicaps out of the gene pool, maybe they have actually had an important evolutionary function for us, i.e. being a test of empathy and nurturing. My thinking being that humans who are more empathetic are also more cooperative, and cooperation has helped humans flourish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,198 ✭✭✭✭endacl




  • Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭micky jammy delahunty


    Do you not think that we'd want to keep the British considering that they invented nearly everything of note for over 200 yrs.

    Considering in chemistry, alkaline, alkene, alkane, alcohol, algebra, and so much more of this stuff the Brits supposedly "invented" has Arabic names....I think we've been had...and don't really need them...
    What's the use in getting rid of the top echelon. It makes no sense from a natural standpoint.

    West Brits, useless agricultural people who are in need of constant bottom wipings....I think we could do quite well without them....-Pour salt on the leeches before they suck all your blood away....that's what I say.....Ryan-air-ize the Culchee and their little and expensive rat dwellings....


  • Registered Users Posts: 968 ✭✭✭railer201


    Not a cull - but a drastic voluntary reduction of the world's population would be in order.

    It would be fair to say there is a direct link between the number of people in the world and the levels of greenhouse gases, plastic pollution of the seas etc.. In other words - double the number of people - double the pollution.

    If we embark, theoretically, on a world-wide programme to decrease our use-age of fossil fuels and disposable plastics by 50% over a period of 30/40 years and the population doubles in the same period - as it has on previous form - then our efforts are cancelled out.

    Somehow we don't hear too much about this side of the problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,126 ✭✭✭screamer


    Problem with over population is that it’s in the under developed parts of the world that they are breeding exponentially, and where we are expected to send aid to, so food aid for contraception, we will feed your current kids in exchange you get a contraceptive shot.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,424 ✭✭✭janfebmar


    If you look at the Catholic churches stance on contraception and the effect it has in poorer parts of the world like the Philippines and some south American countries, it has a lot to answer for. The Muslims too.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Colette Shaggy Muffin


    janfebmar wrote: »
    If you look at the Catholic churches stance on contraception and the effect it has in poorer parts of the world like the Philippines and some south American countries, it has a lot to answer for. The Muslims too.


    That's the past, however (today) all the very fastest growing countries are based in Sub-Sahara Africa and the MEast.


Advertisement