I was wondering and i think i thought of way to improve the human race.

If their were less people on the planet would that help the earth and humans on it? It just random thought that if humans were seperated between five planets it would be a good thing. Your opinion?

I don't mean colonizing other planets. I meant if the population was 1/5 of what it is now and their were other planets out their.

How does less people improve the actual species?

How does less people improve the actual species?

Pirate700

If their were less people on the planet would that help the earth and humans on it? It just random thought that if humans were seperated between five planets it would be a good thing. Your opinion?

warownslife

:lol: Is this a joke thread?

Oh..ahem..uh..i mean...yeah! good idea!

eye on the pyramid anyone? Anyway, the only way to really improve the human race forever, is to make everyone black. Blacks have stronger muscle fibers, so they are stronger. It would improve humanity (even if slightly) forever. anyway, we dont have the planets to do this. We have the moon and mars and even that is experimental.kipohippo021

A. If only.

B. I didn't mean these planets. Just 5 random planets like earth, each with a1/5 of the poulation.

No because then something like a Dark Age of Technology will happen, we'll lose contact with all our people, and then in a few hundred centuries we'll go to galactic war with each other.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"]eye on the pyramid anyone? Anyway, the only way to really improve the human race forever, is to make everyone black. Blacks have stronger muscle fibers, so they are stronger. It would improve humanity (even if slightly) forever. anyway, we dont have the planets to do this. We have the moon and mars and even that is experimental.warownslife

A. If only.

B. I didn't mean these planets. Just 5 random planets like earth, each with a1/5 of the poulation.

I have lost all hope in humanity.

I have lost all hope in humanity.

ANlMOSITY

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

I have lost all hope in humanity.

KiIIyou

I blame religion and television for everything.

Personally, I think required IQ tests for birthing licenses and child limits would accomplish the same task with less cost and more immediate results.

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"][QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

I have lost all hope in humanity.

ANlMOSITY

I blame religion and television for everything.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"]eye on the pyramid anyone? Anyway, the only way to really improve the human race forever, is to make everyone black. Blacks have stronger muscle fibers, so they are stronger. It would improve humanity (even if slightly) forever. anyway, we dont have the planets to do this. We have the moon and mars and even that is experimental.sonofsmeagle

Just abit of off topic here sorry but i want to get the record straight but africans dont have stronger muscles than whites actually whites have stronger muscles than africans however african muscles are more fast twitch and thats why they are better at sports that incorporate more speed and agility however whites have slower twitch muscles but theirs grow faster and are stronger but not as fast thats why u see so many white body builders.

not being racist here but asians have the weakest muscles if we're talking about making a stronger race then they would be on the bottom

:shock:

Ignorance... my god... its amazing...

It's saying things like that is what got you all in this mess in the first place.KiIIyou

I blame religion and television for everything.

Absolutely. If the whole world implemented a 1 child law, then the population of earth would stabilize at ~1.5 billion within a couple generations. That will solve much of the problems of food, pollution, environmental degradation, and economy we currently face.

Wouldn't change a thing TC.

Absolutely. If the whole world implemented a 1 child law, then the population of earth would stabilize at ~1.5 billion within a couple generations. That will solve much of the problems of food, pollution, environmental degradation, and economy we currently face.

Chickity_China

Which planets did you have in mind?Travo_basic

Reach, Alderaan, Namek, and Taris.

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"][QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

I blame religion and television for everything.

kipohippo021

Lmao, poor mindless slave.

Absolutely. If the whole world implemented a 1 child law, then the population of earth would stabilize at ~1.5 billion within a couple generations. That will solve much of the problems of food, pollution, environmental degradation, and economy we currently face.

Chickity_China

Eh, economics would be hurt due to a decrease in the specialization of the labor force. Food would still be scarce in non-agriculturally friendly areas of the world as it has been for the past history of humanity. I'll give you environment, but it will just degrade at 1/4 of the rate as it is currently.

How does less people improve the actual species?

Pirate700

Competition over resources is the root cause of a great deal of mankind's problems, decreased population means decreased pollution, greater populations mean it's harder to maintain social stability and reach consent. Those are just a few off the top of my head, sure I could think up more.

Here's an idea, how about we abolish the monetary system and run a resource-based economy? We certainly have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably.

eye on the pyramid anyone? Anyway, the only way to really improve the human race forever, is to make everyone black. Blacks have stronger muscle fibers, so they are stronger. It would improve humanity (even if slightly) forever. anyway, we dont have the planets to do this. We have the moon and mars and even that is experimental.kipohippo021

Blacks are not stronger. Race is a social construct, genetic differences between races have no basis in biology. You can have genes for skin tone and genes that determine how athletic or intelligent you are but they are all independent of one another.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

How does less people improve the actual species?

theone86

Competition over resources is the root cause of a great deal of mankind's problems, decreased population means decreased pollution, greater populations mean it's harder to maintain social stability and reach consent. Those are just a few off the top of my head, sure I could think up more.

Normally the competition isn't really over a static amount of resources available on the planet (at least not at the present moment) so much as resources which humanity converts to those which is either useful for survival or they just want. Fewer people = fewer resources produced. Holding value per person constant, the problem in its exact proportion remains.

For smaller groups of people consent and social stability is affected by size. Large groups of either 1.5 billion or 7 billion have an effectively equal problem in regard of consent and social stability. (provided the level of diversity of cultural/social/economic levels is held constant)

Agreed on environment.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"]eye on the pyramid anyone? Anyway, the only way to really improve the human race forever, is to make everyone black. Blacks have stronger muscle fibers, so they are stronger. It would improve humanity (even if slightly) forever. anyway, we dont have the planets to do this. We have the moon and mars and even that is experimental.sonofsmeagle

Just abit of off topic here sorry but i want to get the record straight but africans dont have stronger muscles than whites actually whites have stronger muscles than africans however african muscles are more fast twitch and thats why they are better at sports that incorporate more speed and agility however whites have slower twitch muscles but theirs grow faster and are stronger but not as fast thats why u see so many white body builders.

not being racist here but asians have the weakest muscles if we're talking about making a stronger race then they would be on the bottom

Ugh, no race has stronger or better anything, see my other post for explanation.

Here's an idea, how about we abolish the monetary system and run a resource-based economy? We certainly have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably.

ANlMOSITY

Money is used to determine the value of resources relative to each other. Barter sucks.

Here's an idea, how about we abolish the monetary system and run a resource-based economy? We certainly have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably.

ANlMOSITY

I'll say to you what I say to people who say we need no regulation, it's there for a reason. if we could do without it then it never would have come into place in the first place. Money is really just a representation of resources anyways in simplest terms, I think all abolishing it would do is make international trade severely complicated.

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

Here's an idea, how about we abolish the monetary system and run a resource-based economy? We certainly have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably.

theone86

I'll say to you what I say to people who say we need no regulation, it's there for a reason. if we could do without it then it never would have come into place in the first place. Money is really just a representation of resources anyways in simplest terms, I think all abolishing it would do is make international trade severely complicated.

Money is just debt.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

How does less people improve the actual species?

coolbeans90

Competition over resources is the root cause of a great deal of mankind's problems, decreased population means decreased pollution, greater populations mean it's harder to maintain social stability and reach consent. Those are just a few off the top of my head, sure I could think up more.

Normally the competition isn't really over a static amount of resources available on the planet (at least not at the present moment) so much as resources which humanity converts to those which is either useful for survival or they just want. Fewer people = fewer resources produced. Holding value per person constant, the problem in its exact proportion remains.\

For smaller groups of people consent and social stability is affected by size. Large groups of either 1.5 billion or 7 billion have an effectively equal problem in regard of consent and social stability. (provided the level of diversity of cultural/social/economic levels is held constant)

Agreed on environment.

In a global sense, yes there is competition over static resources. Oil is static, potable water is fairly static. Furthermore, you also ahve to figure in decreased demand. Right now there are very few pediatricians, but if the number of all age groups decreases equally then there will be fewer children, hence less demand for pediatricians, hence less competition over the resources vis-a-vis decreased prices. A huge problem now that nobody really acknowledges is that most jobs are superfluous, if you really organized society and had every business, individual, and non-profit running as efficiently as possible then there would be no need for a good deal of the jobs currently available. A consumer-driven, capitalist society operates on a fairly abritrary premise, people need jobs in order to buy things, and the reason these jobs allow them to buy things is because they facilitate production of these things. A phrase comes to mind that originally described beurocracy, that the beurocracy was expanding to serve the needs of the expanding beurocracy. The same can be said of consumer-driven capitalism. I would even go so far as to argue that such a large and expanding human population serves to effectively mask this circular existence as individuals become too concerned with participating in it to realize it's true nature.

In short, what I'm saying is that the proportion doesn't necessarily remain the same. Say you have a group of 100 people, and they produce what we're going to call resource value of 200. You suddenly halve the number to 50, that doesn't necessarily mean that the resource value decreases to 100, it could be 150 or 175.

There are very few countries with populations of 1.5 billion or higher, point still stands.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

Here's an idea, how about we abolish the monetary system and run a resource-based economy? We certainly have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably.

ANlMOSITY

I'll say to you what I say to people who say we need no regulation, it's there for a reason. if we could do without it then it never would have come into place in the first place. Money is really just a representation of resources anyways in simplest terms, I think all abolishing it would do is make international trade severely complicated.

Money is just debt.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American People ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered" - Thomas Jefferson

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

Here's an idea, how about we abolish the monetary system and run a resource-based economy? We certainly have enough resources for everyone to live comfortably.

ANlMOSITY

I'll say to you what I say to people who say we need no regulation, it's there for a reason. if we could do without it then it never would have come into place in the first place. Money is really just a representation of resources anyways in simplest terms, I think all abolishing it would do is make international trade severely complicated.

Money is just debt.

Well, what is debt? Money is a representation of universal value, in the case of most modern countries a fluctuating value that is determined by a combination of factors, among them GDP and national debt. Like I said, we have money for a reason. Part of that is supply and demand, which can wreak havoc with systems of barter. One person raises chickens, but relies on the baker for bread. The baker one day says he doesn't need chickens, he's become vegetarian, what is the chicken farmer to do? He has to trade for something the baker does want, which could turn into a complicated matter especially considering the sheer number of different goods available today. Then there's international trade, how do you facilitate it under a system of barter? You don't, it's really infeasible. In fact, money pratically arose out of the need for it in international economics.

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I'll say to you what I say to people who say we need no regulation, it's there for a reason. if we could do without it then it never would have come into place in the first place. Money is really just a representation of resources anyways in simplest terms, I think all abolishing it would do is make international trade severely complicated.

ANlMOSITY

Money is just debt.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American People ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent th...eir Fathers conquered" - Thomas Jefferson

That's not a condemnation of money, that's saying that banks shouldn't be allowed to affect the value of the county's currency, or in other words they shouldn't be allowed to control how many bills are printed and sent into circulation.

If there were less Americans. I'm not knocking the USA but a wasteful consumerism because we only have so much resources for unrecyclable items like flat screen tvs.

My thread took an interesting turn.

Humans are a territorial species so yes.

If their were less people on the planet would that help the earth and humans on it? It just random thought that if humans were seperated between five planets it would be a good thing. Your opinion?

I don't mean colonizing other planets. I meant if the population was 1/5 of what it is now and their were other planets out their.

warownslife

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

Money is just debt.

theone86

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American People ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent th...eir Fathers conquered" - Thomas Jefferson

That's not a condemnation of money, that's saying that banks shouldn't be allowed to affect the value of the county's currency, or in other words they shouldn't be allowed to control how many bills are printed and sent into circulation.

Well they do control how many bills are printed and sent into circulation, and we get a lot less than what we deserve.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Competition over resources is the root cause of a great deal of mankind's problems, decreased population means decreased pollution, greater populations mean it's harder to maintain social stability and reach consent. Those are just a few off the top of my head, sure I could think up more.

theone86

Normally the competition isn't really over a static amount of resources available on the planet (at least not at the present moment) so much as resources which humanity converts to those which is either useful for survival or they just want. Fewer people = fewer resources produced. Holding value per person constant, the problem in its exact proportion remains.\

For smaller groups of people consent and social stability is affected by size. Large groups of either 1.5 billion or 7 billion have an effectively equal problem in regard of consent and social stability. (provided the level of diversity of cultural/social/economic levels is held constant)

Agreed on environment.

In a global sense, yes there is competition over static resources. Oil is static, potable water is fairly static. Furthermore, you also ahve to figure in decreased demand. Right now there are very few pediatricians, but if the number of all age groups decreases equally then there will be fewer children, hence less demand for pediatricians, hence less competition over the resources vis-a-vis decreased prices. A huge problem now that nobody really acknowledges is that most jobs are superfluous, if you really organized society and had every business, individual, and non-profit running as efficiently as possible then there would be no need for a good deal of the jobs currently available. A consumer-driven, capitalist society operates on a fairly abritrary premise, people need jobs in order to buy things, and the reason these jobs allow them to buy things is because they facilitate production of these things. A phrase comes to mind that originally described beurocracy, that the beurocracy was expanding to serve the needs of the expanding beurocracy. The same can be said of consumer-driven capitalism. I would even go so far as to argue that such a large and expanding human population serves to effectively mask this circular existence as individuals become too concerned with participating in it to realize it's true nature.

In short, what I'm saying is that the proportion doesn't necessarily remain the same. Say you have a group of 100 people, and they produce what we're going to call resource value of 200. You suddenly halve the number to 50, that doesn't necessarily mean that the resource value decreases to 100, it could be 150 or 175.

There are very few countries with populations of 1.5 billion or higher, point still stands.

Oil is static, but the production of it couldn't be considered as such. If global population dropped by a factor of 4, global oil consumption would as well, if not more. In the global arena, there would still be competition for these static resources for the same reason we don't drill locally modernly. It would be cheaper to import.

I agree with the argument that the proportion doesn't remain cnstant, I just happen to think that consumption would be reduced by an even greater factor than population. Mainly due to a reduction of the ability of working society to specialize due to a more numerically restricted labor force. As far as your example of a pediatrician, temporarily, due to fewer people being born, there would be additional pediatricians per capita.

Consumer driven capitalism really wouldn't change.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American People ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent th...eir Fathers conquered" - Thomas JeffersonANlMOSITY

That's not a condemnation of money, that's saying that banks shouldn't be allowed to affect the value of the county's currency, or in other words they shouldn't be allowed to control how many bills are printed and sent into circulation.

Well they do control how many bills are printed and sent into circulation, and we get a lot less than what we deserve.

Life is just survival of the fittest, right now the people running the banks and media are at the top of the food chain.