Waisting the earths natural resources on a surplus population most of which is illogical. Seeing as out of 7 billion people in the world and only 3 billion contribute anything to the global good. lets say we just kept the wealthy Europeans, the actual Americans and 2 million Chinese we could run the world much more efficiently at about less than a billion. lets say we got rid of people on food stamps and other social welfare programs as well. Rich europeans because they set the best goals and highest standards for their companies. Valid americans not on welfare because we work the best in white collar positions, chinese people to do all the manually involved stuff like factory workers. The global economy could run so much smoother without too much needless policies from governments and social problems would be less distracting. Sure you could say killing off 6 billion people is the worst idea ever morally but then again we all die eventually. why not let those remaining live a better quality of life with much more advancement potential. look at the news so much of it is noise due to social problems and rif raf causing problems. eliminating the people eliminates the problem thus allowing for a more peaceful exsistance on earth. a country of people all having aids is just not worth saving. Who wants to live a future much like the 5th element. where people are reduced to living in 10x18 foot apartment because theres a need to make room for so many people. not to mention pills are not food, if resources become so limited that humanity needs to supplement it's nutritional needs by condensing vitamins and minerals to the size of tik tac what is the point. your great great grand children will never enjoy ice cream, turkey dinners, a mcdonalds double cheeseburger. and of course never ever cheeze it's. a growing population means a need for more government control and corporate corruption. this is why genocide is a good thing.
Genocide always happens in nature. For example, new species is arrives, it needs energy and natural resources to grow. When there is abundance in energy, population of the dominant species increases in numbers fast thus using up energy and recourses faster. Those resources will are finite and the species population will decrease also also upon depletion of resources. It's the simplest law of nature.
you probably would've been better off with these kind of ideas back during the nazi regime buddy. i think the world would be a much better place without the rich and greedy, the only reason we can't solve most the problems in the world is because of one of this human inventions we call money. We have more than enough food to feed those needing it or are on food stamps, we have the medicine to treat those with aids, we have more than enough land for all human beings on this planet.. there's only one thing holding us back- money. Have you ever flown across the US? There's so much empty land it's unimaginable to say we'd all HAVE to live in 10x18 foot apartments any time near in the future..
Genocide is just Mother Earth's way of keeping the balance. When ever there are too many ethnic groups that people start getting confused, a genocide is born
If we divided the earth so that everyone had a piece of land if sure there would be plenty to go around. It depends how a countries and governments deals with shortages in food, water etc. Some give foods stamps, that way governments control the flow of resources. Others tell the people to grow their own organic.
OP. GTFO. No seriously. You deserve all your rep to be stripped and you need to go do some serious thinking. "The importance of genocide"..... This fucking guy. You do realize you're advocating some of the most disgusting crimes ever committed against humanity? And with this kind of ignorant bullshit coming out of your mouth I don't think you've contributed anything to the "global good". I know this is the philosophy section and we're pretty lenient on the stupid stuff people say but I really have to draw the line here. Seriously, your view of people is sick and disgusting. I'd insult you further but I'm already running a risk for negative rep and I think you get the point.
Overpopulation is a big issue, especially in large urban areas, as people go where there's work. Major disasters and epidemics (like AIDS) lower the population significantly. They also help with natural selection in way. However i think just keeping the rich Europeans, americans and chinese would be a terrible idea, not only because this would lead to a strange non-diverse world but also because if rich white people work in offices and Chinese people would work in factory's, who would work on farms, who would clean the rich people's gardens and make them food/ do all the other service jobs that the world needs to run. Also , white collar american workers are not at all the best workers, Japanese people are WAY more efficient and dedicated to their work, there really is no reason to keep the americans (i'm not anti-american) because they are the most wasteful people in the world collectively speaking. Although not everybody in the us is a fat, wasteful or stupid person.Alot people that are not on welfare in the us are also not part of the 3 billion that do any good for the world, those people are spread out all over the world. furthermore, genocide would not magically end corruption or greed, lot's of people that are rich and/or powerful are also greedy and/or corrupt. The government will always be corrupt to some extent, in some places more that others, it might even seem as though there is no corruption at all in some places. But that just means that the crooked politicians in that place are better at telling lie's to the public and not getting caught.
This reminds me of a question I was asked by a philosophy professor: would you happy with a society which ran well, but at the expense of imposing torture on one child? It was a way of exposing a problem with utilitarianism. Let's face it, your idea here sounds like utilitarianism. Suppose the situation were instead that: 1 billion people live a perfect life, but one human being has to die slowly and painfully 6 billion times, and the question is: is that morally acceptable to you? If you would say yes, the next question I suggest you ask is this: if you could not be sure that the one person to suffer is not you, would that still be morally acceptable? The title of this thread screams troll, I'm assuming this isn't that serious a thesis.
the tags on this thread are hilarious. OP, that one line... "Rich europeans because they set the best goals and highest standards for their companies. Valid americans not on welfare because we work the best in white collar positions, chinese people to do all the manually involved stuff like factory workers." I mean... you realize how subjective these assessments are, right? And I mean... really 19th century sounding... you know... put the chinese people on the railroad. I mean, you've got to be trolling. i mean... the kicker to your argument is the annihilation of the future cheez it supply. if you're suggesting we nuke africa and south america (because let's be honest, you're really just after the darkies' aren't you?) to ensure a steady supply of cheez it's... then you're tooooooootally on the winning side of this argument.
its the point though. would you want to have to eat a pill manufactured and patented by a company or enjoy something tasty. Additionally "Americans" are diverse enough to eliminate the race card.... just no illegals. its not that bad of an idea when you look at the stats of chinese factory workers willing to do anything for practically nothing.
We could go for a genocide right now... There are a lot of humans littering this planet that are better off dead.
I would be killed off. actually I would fight back, tactically assassinating the ringleaders of the genocide, in effect .... genociding genociders. actually I'd hide. but the rich people are some of the worst people in the world I don't want a world of just them, and the greater good is hard to predict. everyone is an individual, killing off groups based on traits is wrong. when you take away the rights of just a few, what happens when that few includes you? good question though. made me think
To an extent, I would agree with your stance here, but I disagree with your attack tactics and your overall ignorance. While the OP's verbiage here may not have been ideal, the topic is still an important one to discuss, whether the genocide is brought on by man or nature, for we DO face the very serious issue of a finite amount of resources on this planet. And when I say ignorance, I mean this simple little fact. Far more blood has been spilled with a bible than has ever been spilled with a gun. If you ask me, the largest purveyor of "the most disgusting crimes ever committed against humanity" is organized religion. Might want to keep that in mind, especially if it's a little harder to look in the mirror.
Thread fail OP. If you honestly believe what you wrote... Either recognize that you are wrong or accept you were half ass trolling.