The Desire for an Apocalypse?

[afronova1127]

Last saturday I went to the city with my friends and a few new people tagged along, one of them in particular was named Laura S. My best friends name (who was there) is Laura D. Laura S. all day kept shoving her PEta(edit, sorry spell check) like beliefs all over my leather bag and gloves, it was like barf. I didn't really care, her beliefs are her beliefs but when we were on the LIRR after a long day she says "I wish that a large human death would occur because of the negative impacts we have on the environment and more so animals". My friend Laura D. who is more socially liberal says "Are you kidding me?! How could you wish that on so many people, killing all of those people, it's not just a number, those are individuals". The only other reply Laura S. said was "I think that humans shouldn't be able to reproduce for 10 years because the population is too large". This time I stepped in because that's absolutely RIDICULOUS! The economy would just about die, and so would our species. I mean this girl psychologically hasn't developed reversibility, like what would the impact of her ideas have on herself and how would it make her feel. In the end once we said our goodbyes my friend Laura D. said I HATE HER!

So what do you think: is it good for and apocalyptic type of event to happen to benefit the environment, and should there be more reproductive limitations around the world?

[Bynary Fission]

I am AGAINST this. The apocalypse is a (so far) completely fictitious wish for an end to the human race, and the event of this wish. The human race is destructive, yes. but what many people fail to realize is that, as a sentient, intelligent race, we are bound to use our environment past the normal amount that animals do. Human beings are sentient, and for that reason, they seek to expand, and learn more about the world around them. This spawns religion, research, and expansion. This eventually grows out of hand, because the reproductive rate for humans exceeds that of it's death rate per capita. We hold all these things dear, and some of the paradigms that spawned from growth that people say affects the Earth negatively are actually very positve, examples being some religions like Shintoism.

But we are not the only ones to blame. Elephants are, in some ways, comparable to us. Not only are they some of the most intelligent animals on earth, some are shown to be self-aware, and possess intelligence that at times exceeds that of all living beings aide from humans. Given the chance to breed without control, they will destroy the land around them, bashing down trees, and eating all the vegetation in sight. Controlled, this is good for the environment. But after a while, it becomes destructive. But people don't wish for an apocalypse to afflict the elephants? So why do the same to humans?

Humans are, as you say, a living, breathing, individual. We feel pain, we experience sorrow and sadness, and we grieve when tragedy befalls us. How could anybody actually want to wish such horror upon us? Many humans help the environment, ans they make efforts to save it and preserve it. So why should they be slaughtered when they are trying to prevent the very thing that Laura S. says we deserve to be killed over? Exactly my point.

Because humans are so intelligent, we spread. We develop towns, then cities. We explore new lands are spread across the world. Then we grow. However, I do agree that the human population is ballooning at an excessive rate. But that's no reason to kill innocent human beings. Believe me, humans cannot control mother nature, at least not now. When humans have covered the Earth to the point of economic, environmental, and social collapse, the population will shrink drastically. Animals do the same when populations balloon.

An apocalypse is simply the idea that humans deserve to die because they affect the environment. Well, so do animals, and in rare cases, they are as destructive as we are. This is all part of the cycle of life and nature. When the time comes, Mother Nature will take over and the human population will return to normal, whether it be by a natural form of the apocalypse or something else. Anybody who wants an apocalypse to befall us can just die. But the reasons that they want one do have merit. But something will keep the population of all things in check, even humans. But that is a natural way for Mother Nature to keep itself in balance. Humans should just live their life, but help be part of the solution, not the problem. Then, maybe we will not need an apocalypse to control the problem that has grown for thousands of years.


~Bynary Fission


P.S It's about time there was a new topic, it's been days. :razz:

[devonin]

For reference, it's PETA not pita. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

To address your questions. 1) I think a large scale human-death event would pretty much have to entail something that would have a negative effect on the environment (nuclear attack, large scale ground war, bombing of civilian populations etc) unless you are somehow advocating some nation saying "We're going to just execute some number of people" in which case the global outcry to the human rights abuses would certainly put a stop to it.

I also don't think that enforcing reproduction limits on anybody could possibly be justified. Entirely aside from the moral issues I have with dictating to individuals what they can and can't do based on the potential consequences that may or may not result, I also don't see how limiting population growth would help any of the issues that your friend stated.

[Mezo]

apocalypse... in the form of like war or giant explosion or zombie virus would make life quite fun ^_^... as long as some people lived. Imagine Mad Max Beyond Thunder Dome mixed with Resident Evil, I Am Legend, and like that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game ... that is my wish. Life is too boring to be sitting around and doing homework or menial job tasks... we need more shotguns, barren cities, and zombie slaying. Just a new form of survival of the fittest ;)

I don't support the idea of human death in order to "save" the environment... it wouldn't make much impact on anything anyway. life would continue and the Lemurs would take over after a couple million years :) It's bound to happen anyway

[Sullyman2007]

I see the term apocalypse as nothing more than a human emotion that wants to see the end of something. Well it's not that we want everything to end, we just can't comprehend everything "not ending".
Will edit when I have a good example.

[Verruckter]

Reproductive limitations? How the hell do you want to establish any of those? That's absolutely impossible, given human nature.

You see, the nature of humans is to reproduce. Eat, drink, and breathe, of course, are other functions of the body, but reproducing is the ultimate goal. Simpler forms of life do this by separating into two parts. Unicellular use mythosis to do so. But humans have genitalia (as we all know) and basic instincts that allow them to not only reproduce, but to know when and how to do so. Those basic instincts must (and most likely will) be somehow satisfied: Unevitably people will want to reproduce. Women (most of them, at least) have the innate sense of wanting to care for children (at least their own). They also have, as well as men, sexual drives that will lead them to the reproductive act and thus perpetuate the race.

I'm rambling a bit here but what I'm trying to say is that it's impossible for humans to be stopped from reproducing, especially if you use only legislation. People will do it anyways.

Now, for the apocaliptic schemes, the only way to kill a lot of people instantly would render the habitat barren, unusable, radioactive, or anything alike. Anything else would be considered a crime against humanity. You could still hope for a giant comet the size of Nebraska to hit the Earth in some place far away from your home so you could move there once the fuss is cleared, but burnt trees and destroyed buildings don't make very good ground for beans to grow on, don't they?

Yes, this planet is becoming much too full of humans. It's a fact. Humans, like any other type of bacteria or virus, will reproduce (as said earlier). They'll dig in the ressources that they have and will inevitably sicken the host, the same way cancer slowly takes away life from one's body. The planet is starting to ache and we are the cancer.

[Grandiagod]

Often times I've heard evangelist seemingly yearn for the apocalypse simply so that they can transcend into heaven and all the unbelievers will burn in hell forever.

So yeah, it's nothing new.

[afronova1127]

I totally don't agree with people who want the human population to decrease so that animals can thrive, yes I love animals, but I eat animals, we are animals also and to eat animals is to prove our ecological and evolutionary success in the food chain. For one to wish the death of the top for the thriving of the bottom is somewhat like communism. I'm all for alternative thinking and I don't hate communism because my American History textbook says democracy is the best, I don't like it because individuals, that have the ability to think, learn, live, love and thrive are dying for the selfish benefit of something else. Besides we already have more chickens than people, if we didn't kill them, there'd be a whole lot of chickens.

[Verruckter]

I totally don't agree with people who want the human population to decrease so that animals can thrive, yes I love animals, but I eat animals, we are animals also and to eat animals is to prove our ecological and evolutionary success in the food chain. For one to wish the death of the top for the thriving of the bottom is somewhat like communism. I'm all for alternative thinking and I don't hate communism because my American History textbook says democracy is the best, I don't like it because individuals, that have the ability to think, learn, live, love and thrive are dying for the selfish benefit of something else. Besides we already have more chickens than people, if we didn't kill them, there'd be a whole lot of chickens.

First off, humans are weakling of the food chain without guns and knives.

Second, communism as seen in Russia doesn't have much to do with real communism as Marx imagined it.

And finally, that thing about chickens... lol.

[afronova1127]

But the guns and knives were made by reasoning and thumbs, our innovations are still part of our ecological success, if you gave a chicken a gun or knife it wouldn't make it to the top of the food chain. :)

[Verruckter]

But the guns and knives were made by reasoning and thumbs, our innovations are still part of our ecological success, if you gave a chicken a gun or knife it wouldn't make it to the top of the food chain. :)

No but if you would remove the gun or the knife from the human, he wouldn't be very high in the food chain anymore.

[Grandiagod]

Humans have the ability to create tools to help us survive in our environment. It's our largest and most important environmental adaption that most of our progress springs from.

So yes, the ability to make and use tools can correctly be seen as a positive evolutionary trait.

I have no idea how this is relevant to the OP, but sure.

[ledwix]

An Apocalypse would be terrible, but I see the situation as a false dichotomy. Believing in the Apocalypse doesn't necessarily mean you want the world to end, just as believing a certain political campaign will win the election doesn't necessarily mean you want that campaign to succeed. There seems to be an unwarranted assumption that having this belief correlates to wanting everyone in the world to die, as if everyone is evil or something.

I think we have an uncomfortably high chance of killing ourselves through wars in the next few thousand years. It would certainly be idiotic, though.

[Crashfan3]

What kind of crazed world does your "friend" live in? No amount of mass deaths or reproductive limits are going to significantly aid the animals. And even if they did, what your friend needs to understand is there's this thing called the food chain. Cow eats grass, human eats cow. I don't support that some factories create some sort of a "cow holocaust" where they inhumanely mass-kill the animals to sell off as much meat as they can, but humans eat meat. It's been going on for centuries, and no new-age idealistic revolution such as the PETA is going to stop it.

As for "The Desire for an Apocolypse", well that occurs only to those weird people who sit in the corner and write hate poems, and insane warlords with huge armies at their disposal. I think if your friend happened to notice that people were just dropping dead out on the streets because of "divine punishment for our sins against the animals" she'd probably start to scream, and fear that she might be next.

[xinpig]

Apocalypse Now!

[afronova1127]

What kind of crazed world does your "friend" live in?
She's not my friend, I disagree with her, Laura D. is my friend...
Another thing is that people who are part of animal programs like PETA are standing for what seems to be an innocent cause but it is actually horrible they way they achieve this. People protest outside rescue shelter directors houses and protest that animals are being killed, well yeah they're being killed, there just aren't enough resources to help these animals but they are still busting their asses to help as many as they can. What are they supposed to do? Let the animals out? That's the goal of the ALF and they're just crazy (they set buildings on fire to free animals). You're risking the lives of thinking people for a cat or dog, yeah it's sad they have to die but no form of animal killing is friendly, a wolf can chase a baby sheep for two hours for finally plunging it down and devouring it.
A little off topic but yeah...

[argo15]

Besides we already have more chickens than people, if we didn't kill them, there'd be a whole lot of chickens.

Reading this. I think our overgrowing population is because of our position on the food chain. What if we destroyed all intelligent weapons in the world? Then released visious man-hungry animals into our citys and neighborhoods. Our population would natural decrease, because there is so much food for these animals who our higher than us on the food chain. Eventually as our population decreases, food supply decreases, and those man-eating animals would die out, allowing our population to grow. This cycle would keep our species under control... but that would be if our species wern't so intelligent.

Truth is, we don't know what will happen to our over growing population because something of this magnitude has never happend before. Although I would guess that our food supplies would run low at some point, and we would start to die out till our population has the right ammount of people that our vegitation and animals food can serve.

btw Apocolypse bad, nature will take care of itself.

[Laharl]

Apocalypse Now is a pretty fantastic song by Muse.

Had to be said.

[Jokee]

Look dude, every politicans take that excuse "economy". I know this is radical but I think a little clean-up would be good (after all, you do defragment your hard-drive don't you?)
I don't like the toughts of people diing tough. Anyways, that clean-up will happen, one day or another.

[BanzaiKamikaze]

Apocalypse to "try" to reboot our societies ? Everyone has an opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, there is a severe limit on how an end justifies the means :S .

Ending so many lives and denying our reproducing nature is unacceptable in so many ways I don't even feel like listing them (bad argumentation on my part).

We may be parasites on this planet, we may be messing with the delicate balance nature had worked for millions of years, but we are not entirely hopeless. There is improvement here and there, and in the end, it is in our nature to survive, and we would not let our poor planet die on us would we ?

We are currently trying to dominate nature and manipulate its laws to our advantage. Environment is damaged in the process, but "restarting" civilization would never correct the problem. Humans will never be in perfect symbiosis with the environment because of a lack of ressources and our hunger for what we think is a better life.

We have to keep faith in our scientists to find ways to satisfy this hunger without crippling our environment. I don't think anyone has the ability to judge that the only way to improve the condition of our friend Earth is to cripple our civilization.

[Reach]

'm rambling a bit here but what I'm trying to say is that it's impossible for humans to be stopped from reproducing, especially if you use only legislation. People will do it anyways.

I don't think anyone has tried, but I'm nearly positive a reversible form of birth control could be done on all females to prevent them from reproducing until that process is reversed. So uh, certainly not impossible, though I agree that it is human nature to reproduce. However, most people treat it like a right, and some abuse that right irresponsibly with severe consequences, which is something that bothers me greatly.

It's pretty evident humans can't continue to reproduce forever. An apocalyptic event would be terrible way to go about fixing our problem temporarily, but I suppose if you scroll far enough into the future it's inevitable in some form. The earth contains a limited amount of resources, as does the universe. The human race will perish eventually, consequently, likely in a very short time period. We've already outgrown our capacity at least once when technology came along to save us, but I doubt that will keep happening. You can continue to produce more and more engineered food and space to fit more people on this planet but it will not be able to hold a growing population forever.

Thankfully as countries develop their population growth levels off (see Europe). It's the developing countries that are responsible for the overpopulation, so population control might not even be necessary. An apocalyptic event is still unavoidable though, whether it's a good thing or bad thing, assuming you define it as widespread disaster that involves the death of nearly everyone/everyone.

[devonin]

but I'm nearly positive a reversible form of birth control could be done on all females to prevent them from reproducing until that process is reversed. So uh, certainly not impossible How are you enforcing it so you are 100% positive that every single woman is faithfully subjecting themselves to this process?

[pokelda]

As overpopulation is the main source of the problem, it's alot easier to control our reproductive nature than to have a large percentage of our population be wiped off. As reach pointed out, population in developed areas such as Europe and America are starting to level off. The cause of this in my opinion is that people are more educated, and more likely to succeed in life within these areas. This means that there is no incentive to create large families like they do in less developed countries. If we could educate the developing countries and improve life conditions there, population growth could be leveled off entirely and we can feasibly control our numbers.

This, in my very honest opinion, is alot better than wishing for an apocolypse.

[Verruckter]

I don't think anyone has tried, but I'm nearly positive a reversible form of birth control could be done on all females to prevent them from reproducing until that process is reversed. So uh, certainly not impossible, though I agree that it is human nature to reproduce. However, most people treat it like a right, and some abuse that right irresponsibly with severe consequences, which is something that bothers me greatly.

Maybe it's physically possible (although chances are it would bring a ton of other side effects), but ethically, morally and socially, it's definitely not. You can't choose who or who has the right to have children, you can't prevent some from having them while others can't.

Yes, it is a right to have children. It's not a privilege. It's part of your nature to have them. I do agree that some people are inapt to take care or raise them properly, and should not have children, but I still don't think you should stop them from doing so.

I don't think there's anything we can do to stop or reverse the desecration process of our planet on the population aspect.

[Reach]

How are you enforcing it so you are 100% positive that every single woman is faithfully subjecting themselves to this process?

You'd do it at birth by force, I would think.

Yes, it is a right to have children. It's not a privilege. It's part of your nature to have them. I do agree that some people are inapt to take care or raise them properly, and should not have children, but I still don't think you should stop them from doing so.

Well, our society gives us that right, which in turn makes it a privilege, since not everyone enjoys this right and it could be taken away.

This is sort of off topic, but why shouldn't we stop them? We enforce laws and regulations for everything else, including adoption. Logically I think we should stop them if they are unfit, much like you stop a drunk driver, because you're potentially endangering the life of a child. I'm not saying enforcing what I conjured up earlier would actually work, since it would never pass, (well, maybe in china...) but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, since some people practice this anyway if they have genetic disorders like Huntington's. It seems natural to screen for things like this, a long with standards of knowledge and requirements before you are allowed to have a child, but I don't think it will happen either way.

[xinpig]

why would people want to even consider the human race committing itself to self extinction

[devonin]

Logically I think we should stop them if they are unfit

There's your problem. Who does the deciding as to what constitutes unfit? Where's the benchmark for a "good enough" parent?

[Jokee]

We have to keep faith in our scientists to find ways to satisfy this hunger without crippling our environment.

Not only scientists are involved in that. Scientists invented the water engine and oil companies bought the invention and destroyed it because they would loose money on oil.


And this "reboot" like you said will happen, either because of humans or natural catastrophe. There already have been 5 massive extinctions on earth so we're not protected.

[Verruckter]

Not only scientists are involved in that. Scientists invented the water engine and oil companies bought the invention and destroyed it because they would loose money on oil.

Exactly what I was going to say. Hydrogen engines, electric engines... all dissapeared. Most of the patents have been bought off by huge companies and lokced away until they expire.

[reptile3141]

Apocalypse Now!

LOL!

[Reach]

There's your problem. Who does the deciding as to what constitutes unfit? Where's the benchmark for a "good enough" parent?

I already went into this at the end of my post. Right off the bat, having a highly heritable genetic disorder means you're unfit. You can also administer the same set of tests that are required for people that want to adopt with similar cut offs. This usually involves psychological testing and intelligence testing depending on the country, along with a standard knowledge battery for taking care of a child.

Many parents destroy the lives of their children before they're even born with their stupidity: you see it all the time if you are involved in healthcare. This wasn't a problem at all some thousand of years ago, because these children did not go on to reproduce. I am amazingly grateful for Canada's Heathcare system, but at the same time recognize it often keeps alive people that would not have normally reproduced. This unnatural balance and disproportionate growth rate will be a factor in our demise, as it eats up resources faster and decreases the utility and genetic fruitfulness of the population.

As a society, we go ahead and remove children from parents that are unfit, assuming the law gets involved. It is quite obvious then, that everyone agrees that some people should not be parents. You can save a whole lot of hassle by inoculating against this early on instead of patching it when problems arise.

I do think it's important, if we plan to maximize the utility of our species and not go extinct within the next few centuries. I wouldn't put it on my priority list of things to do in the world right now though, if I had any say in the matter, and I don't think it'll ever happen anyway. Regardless of what I have to say, our government would never support it, and neither would the majority of the worlds governments. But whatever, these are the same people that aren't doing anything about climate change either. The problem will hit us in the face eventually, by the time it's too late to do anything about it.

[Kilroy_x]

This unnatural balance and disproportionate growth rate will be a factor in our demise, as it eats up resources faster and decreases the utility and genetic fruitfulness of the population.

No developed country has problems of scarcity (except maybe of I-pods*). Also, what on earth do you mean by genetic fruitfulness? If a trait is survivable in a given environment, the host survives. What about that runs contrary to survival of the fittest?



*Meaning: Not of necessities

[Reach]

No developed country has problems of scarcity (except maybe of I-pods*). Also, what on earth do you mean by genetic fruitfulness? If a trait is survivable in a given environment, the host survives. What about that runs contrary to survival of the fittest?



*Meaning: Not of necessities

No problems of scarcity *yet*.

I suppose by Genetic fruitfulness I mean the portion of the population that is born capable of being productive, leading to utility - or being of practical use in the work force. Disproportionately large numbers of incapable or not useful individuals is not a good thing. I'm not saying we are currently facing any of these problems, but that it's a possibility, as I'm playing the pessimist here.

The problem I see with what you're saying about survival of the fittest is that...we won't survive >_> If the majority of the population is not productive and eating excessive resources, they are not adapted to the environment created for them. This is almost like taking a species and sticking it on another continent, where they typically cause a lot of problems. We depend on high technology and our ability to work hard and make progress.

[Kilroy_x]

No problems of scarcity *yet*.

Where are you expecting your problems of scarcity to come from?

I suppose by Genetic fruitfulness I mean the portion of the population that is born capable of being productive, leading to utility - or being of practical use in the work force. Disproportionately large numbers of incapable or not useful individuals is not a good thing. I'm not saying we are currently facing any of these problems, but that it's a possibility, as I'm playing the pessimist here.

What would you consider productive labor? White collar workers probably don't need to be as physically resilient as blue collar workers. Blue collar workers probably don't need to be as intellectually equipped as white collar workers. Individuals with both severe physical and mental handicaps don't tend to reproduce even in todays society.

The problem I see with what you're saying about survival of the fittest is that...we won't survive >_> If the majority of the population is not productive and eating excessive resources, they are not adapted to the environment created for them. This is almost like taking a species and sticking it on another continent, where they typically cause a lot of problems. We depend on high technology and our ability to work hard and make progress.

I don't see how that could happen. So say some proportion of the population is completely dependent on the productivity of others. The severely disabled, or a species of animal which no longer exists in the wild, or the government, perhaps. Once an organism has taxed its environment too much, whether by critically reducing the food supply or whatever, some form of population control is inevitable. This might just be a population crash. Maybe people will just stop paying for healthcare for the severely disabled, simply because they no longer can. Or it might be more sophisticated. Perhaps, when it becomes apparent such a crash is impending, individuals or governments will take it upon themselves to pay the severely disabled to sterilize themselves. Eugenics, to be certain, but seemingly more humane than the alternatives.

All this, of course, contingent upon the population in question actually becoming that burdensome. It seems unlikely to me. Productivity is too likely to stay ahead of the curve. Of course, other taxing factors might lead to system failure, but then we're really talking about the totality of a given political economy and not just one factor, like the size of the population of disabled people.

[ischooltennyson]

Wow.

If humans did stop reproducing for ten years, imagine all of the negative impacts. Almost all elementary schools, daycares, Preschools, etc. would just crash. Plus, there would be many people who find this insane and rebel against it, causing lots of problems. This list could go on forever

[Kilroy_x]

It could. What you've given me, however, is a very short list with complaints which don't actually seem valid or significant.