The Human Cull

[WWLabRat]

Modern morality is the product of the industrial age and the great food surpluses it has produced, when there is enough food around the common instinct is to not make unnecessary enemies. In more Malthusian times peoples mindsets are quite different. For example when the bible was written the main character called God frequently tells the Hebrews to exterminate rival tribes including all the women and children, but sometimes they are allowed to take slaves and concubines. These things where considered good and moral, sometimes the god character does the genocide himself with powers akin to nuclear weapons or great floods.

 

When societies advance from tribalism to despotism however the elite consider it in there interests to have some starving masses around to drive down the market value of labor to starvation rations, so philosophies that extol the virtues of peace are encouraged.

 

If Malthusian times return democracies will revert to either tribalism or sometimes despotism.

 

There's a few reasons why, in my opinion, this is an incomplete view of society after the majority would be wiped out. First of all, since biblical times, we, as a race, have developed a level of civility and diplomacy that wasn't present in the BC and early AD. Majority of people alive these days are either monotheistic or renounce a deity of any sort.

 

Second, the Hebrews were a nomadic tribe, prone to picking up and leaving whenever the wind would blow a certain way. It is common knowledge that history is written by the victors, not the defeated. That being said, it's easy to see that the nations the Hebrews would overtake could have been taken down in a manner different than what is stated in a book that was originally passed down by word of mouth and eventually put on paper by men. Details get skewed even in a simple game of telephone. Imagine playing that same game over hundreds of years among hundreds and thousands of people...

 

Third, the technology we have today wouldn't simply vanish. The knowledge of the human race would still allow society to function. It may have some setbacks due to the sudden lack of the majority, but even if you take 5 out of 6 people that work in a particular field, chances are that the remaining person would still know enough to pass that knowledge on to help continue things.

 

From a logistic point of view I still fail to see how it is easier to have a significant amount of people survive either in space or even on a remote planet (unless they are, for some weird reason, perfectly suitable for human life) rather than find a corner on Earth and make that inhabitable until the rest clears out.

 

The basic assumption is that e.g. massive amounts of killing would affect every corner of the world. But what about the parts that are not inhabited, say, the ocean, or large parts of the arctic. Or even Canada for that part .

Even if there was significant pollution and heavy toxin contamination, how much worse is that from being in space or on a completely hostile planet? In all cases you would isolate the population from the environment.

 

The problem isn't finding room here on Earth. The problem exists in that the burning of billions of bodies would create toxic conditions planet-wide. To relate it to another work of fiction, look at Stephen King's Under the Dome. *Spoiler Alert* Towards the end of the book, while everyone is under this dome where air, water, etc can't escape, pollutants build up and create toxic conditions. Later on, there's an explosion that sends even more pollution into the air that blacks out the view outside the dome and everyone caught inside starts to suffocate. Something similar would be bound to happen, though on a much larger scale. Only thing is, there would be no escape from this. There wouldn't be an alien being to raise the dome and let the air back in. It would take months to years for the ashes to fully settle and for things to fall back to normal levels. However, the pH in the water would still make it toxic. Not being able to drink the water would kill the fish or any animals that use those streams as their water source. this would keep some plants from pollinating or seeding. Entire ecosystems would collapse.

 

Even creating a Biodome wouldn't help too much. Eventually the people living under the biodome would run out of natural resources, (ie water, air, etc) and wouldn't have a way to replenish it with a safe backup. However if another planet were terraformed, it would at least give the remaining people that are still here a place to go to start over while waiting for the dust to settle.

[CharonY]

 

The problem isn't finding room here on Earth. The problem exists in that the burning of billions of bodies would create toxic conditions planet-wide.

 

How is that worse than being on a planet without atmosphere or unsuitable for human life? Remember the premise is that we should go and terraform something, which implies that the target planet is inhospitable to begin with. So in order to go there you would have precisely the same problems plus you have the issue of the material to terraform there. It would only make sense if there was perfectly habitable planet to begin with (except logistics would still be an issue). And again, if you have the science to terraform a planet (which is sci-fi at this point), the question is why similar technology cannot be applied to Earth (other than it does not deliver a nice plot device to seek out other planets).

 

Of course terraforming is still not possible and I guess there is relatively little in terms of hard science that we could rely on as empirical basis. Nonetheless, so far I have not seen a good argument why dealing with toxins and pollution on Earth is harder than doing the same off-planet.

Edited August 26, 2013 by CharonY

[Mr Monkeybat]

Cremating billions of bodies would not poison the Earth over one tonne of coal is burnt for every person in the world every year it would take much less coal than that to burn their body, it would take less than half a year before you have a net reduction in pollution. Anyway why do the bodies have to bu burned? You could chuck the into the sea as fish food, process them into sausages, grind them up into blood and bone fertilizer, use your imagination!

 

There's a few reasons why, in my opinion, this is an incomplete view of society after the majority would be wiped out. First of all, since biblical times, we, as a race, have developed a level of civility and diplomacy that wasn't present in the BC and early AD. Majority of people alive these days are either monotheistic or renounce a deity of any sort.

 

Second, the Hebrews were a nomadic tribe, prone to picking up and leaving whenever the wind would blow a certain way. It is common knowledge that history is written by the victors, not the defeated. That being said, it's easy to see that the nations the Hebrews would overtake could have been taken down in a manner different than what is stated in a book that was originally passed down by word of mouth and eventually put on paper by men. Details get skewed even in a simple game of telephone. Imagine playing that same game over hundreds of years among hundreds and thousands of people...

 

Third, the technology we have today wouldn't simply vanish. The knowledge of the human race would still allow society to function. It may have some setbacks due to the sudden lack of the majority, but even if you take 5 out of 6 people that work in a particular field, chances are that the remaining person would still know enough to pass that knowledge on to help continue things.

 

 

 

First my coment was not a prediction of the situation after the cull but of the kind of situation that would lead to mass genocide as their where many previous saying that such a cull "would never be considered ethical". Sorry I should of used the quote function to make this more clear.

 

Second I am not sure what point you are trying to make here but it is clear to me that when the Bible, Talmud, and Koran where written mass genocide was considered an ethical and righteous action. Although ironically modern left wing politics is 17th-19th century christian universalism in atheist drag.

 

Third technology is a tool. To a certain extent tools used mold your thoughts but If modern technology cannot avoid Malthusian catastrophe it will not stop the destabilization of universalist democracy.

[WWLabRat]

 

How is that worse than being on a planet without atmosphere or unsuitable for human life? Remember the premise is that we should go and terraform something, which implies that the target planet is inhospitable to begin with. So in order to go there you would have precisely the same problems plus you have the issue of the material to terraform there. It would only make sense if there was perfectly habitable planet to begin with (except logistics would still be an issue). And again, if you have the science to terraform a planet (which is sci-fi at this point), the question is why similar technology cannot be applied to Earth (other than it does not deliver a nice plot device to seek out other planets).

 

Of course terraforming is still not possible and I guess there is relatively little in terms of hard science that we could rely on as empirical basis. Nonetheless, so far I have not seen a good argument why dealing with toxins and pollution on Earth is harder than doing the same off-planet.

 

 

Cremating billions of bodies would not poison the Earth over one tonne of coal is burnt for every person in the world every year it would take much less coal than that to burn their body, it would take less than half a year before you have a net reduction in pollution. Anyway why do the bodies have to bu burned? You could chuck the into the sea as fish food, process them into sausages, grind them up into blood and bone fertilizer, use your imagination!

First my coment was not a prediction of the situation after the cull but of the kind of situation that would lead to mass genocide as their where many previous saying that such a cull "would never be considered ethical". Sorry I should of used the quote function to make this more clear.

 

Second I am not sure what point you are trying to make here but it is clear to me that when the Bible, Talmud, and Koran where written mass genocide was considered an ethical and righteous action. Although ironically modern left wing politics is 17th-19th century christian universalism in atheist drag.

 

Third technology is a tool. To a certain extent tools used mold your thoughts but If modern technology cannot avoid Malthusian catastrophe it will not stop the destabilization of universalist democracy.

 

CharonY, it is in human nature, when population density increases, to seek out expansion and "migrate" away from the dense center and settle in outlying areas. This has happened with our species for so long now that we are currently starting to reach critical mass across the globe. Yes, I understand there are areas that are not currently inhabited or are to such a low extent but are in such areas that people don't want to live and therefore won't. However, as with the small scale, as we move to the entire planet filling up, where else is that expansion going to go? The simplest answer would be somewhere extraterrestrial.

Anyone who has studied even the slightest amount of astronomy knows that there is a "habitable zone" lying around stars where the planets within them where, if an atmosphere takes, would potentially be able of harboring life (as we know it). A planet like Mars (which is why it's used in terraforming examples) lies on the outer edge of our sun's habitable zone. No, we don't have the technology to do so... Currently. Science is constantly expanding its horizons everyday and at a geometric rate. It's not unrealistic to see that we, as a species, could develop that technology by the time it would be needed.

Yes, logistics would be an issue for us at the moment, but as I stated above, that technology could be presented at a later time and could potentially handle the load. And there would be no reason to terraform Earth. It is already suited to our needs. The problem comes into play when dealing with the overpopulation.

Mr Monkeybat, Yes, it may be one ton of coal for every person every year... But that's also over the course of a year, not over the matter of days, weeks, and possibly months. That many bodies burning all at once has the potential to create toxic conditions, not because it just would exist in the air/water, but because of the concentration. And it's known that all the smoke put into the air, regardless of the source, when in high enough concentrations creates an acidic rain. And it's obvious we can't just dump the bodies into the sea. Obviously this would poison the water, which when evaporated could move it back into the air, etc. I don't think I need to mention that we don't want any human sausages or Mrs Lovett's meat pies as a means to destroying the bodies.

On your first point, I know that your original thought was to the ethics of a human cull. The problem is that the powers that be in society would have to ask these same things about what the potential damage would be and that would also go into what the final decision would be. That leads me into your second point where the beliefs of individual religions doesn't dictate the beliefs of others around the globe. Not every belief system (because I hate using religion to define it) is going to have the same feelings towards the needs of the many versus the needs of the few. Some will be for, some will be against. Exact percentages of each would be impossible to know without polling every living person on Earth.

And as for the third point, as long as there are multiple people living in the same area, striving for life in any sort of fashion, there will be some form of government or society. Even in tribal villages that have no interaction with the outside world, there is always a chief, elder, or council to make the decisions of the group as a whole. There will always be a governing body. That is just the nature of humans. There will always be the alphas that lead and the betas that follow.