Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're the only one who brought them up so far and you don't seem to have been downvoted.


Thats true. Reddit seems to be more infested with the pro monsanto crowd. Many of their arguments sound very legitimate as in - try feeding the human race some other way type arguments. But then we must consider this ongoing mass extinction event which seems intimately tied to the use of pesticides and herbicides that apparently, according to the experts, are not harmful to unintended insect populations.

It’s hard to know whats true and what isnt with all the misinformation being spread around.


It's not hard to know, just people being lazy to do their own research.


[flagged]


Who do you suggest we kill?


[flagged]


This is literally Thanos' plan in Infinity War/Endgame. I never expected to hear someone argue for it in real life.


> Noone in particular. Just let the lack of food do its thing.

So the poor then?


[flagged]


Besides the absolute inhumanity of mass genocide, your comments rings of hyperbole unless you are willing to lead the charge by offering your own life before anyone else's.


"the absolute inhumanity of mass genocide" - If your focus is "survival of humans as a species", what's so "inhumane" about it? You are focusing too much on the individual human and not on the species.

And of course I wouldn't sacrifice my own life first, since from my perspective that's obviously the most important thing and everything else is secondary. But once my life is preserved, I look at the bigger picture and see that we (I) would obviously be better off if we killed off 50% of the remaining population.

Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? I'm fairly sure you would see it the same way (if you would just admit it to yourself).


Returning to WWII is a scaring but it seems that increasing popular idea. We can do it better, and we must do it better this time.


Returning to WWII isn't going to do anything useful, even if you do want to go down this intellectual rabbit-hole. I've actually looked into this before.

Go look at how many people died in WWII. Was it a lot? In absolute numbers, sure. As a percentage of the human race? No, not really. It barely made a dent in the worldwide population. You can look at population graphs over time, and it barely registers, if at all. Remember, WWI also killed a lot of people, but more people died from the Spanish Flu pandemic.

I'm sorry, but war just isn't a very good form of population control any more. Maybe it was in Medieval times, but it isn't now. Even with the horrific numbers of dead, it's just not that much of the overall population, and the amount of destruction it wreaks on everything is insane: cities leveled, resources wasted on building war materiel, and of course the ridiculous amount of oil burned (which just makes the global warming problem that much worse). Modern militaries are huge consumers of oil when they're deployed.


> war just isn't a very good form of population control any more

That's because war isn't a form of population control. It's a form of conflict resolution.


I never said it was; it seemed that someone 2 levels up was suggesting this.


Who said anything about WWII? I certainly did not. All I'm saying is that we would be a lot better off with less than 4billion people on the planet than 9billion. How we get there I didn't say anything about.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: