by BlisteredWhippet » Thu 10 Apr 2008, 16:23:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zensui', '
')you're underestimating girl's minds just because they live in the "third world" and propose government's bioterrorism on the same post? wow, I thought you were not that clueless.
You misunderstand me. I am postulating the rationale of a group of people who don't have to worry about "beat cops" busting their chops- thats for the middle, low, and lower classes.
If you look at the population problem as a global phenomenon, and want to get to strategies to reduce them, you look at what has worked, what hasn't, and what could be done about it.
If you are sufficiently "advanced", and look at the planet as a whole as a "Master of the Universe", or caretaker of a sort, you might not have the whiffling, simpering, Hollywood sentimentality about the "individual" that afflicts the lower classes. At the upper ranges of intelligence, the caveman-like neurosis of cultures and societies, and their boring, enthrenched, and mundane problems is a class of thought entirely beneath them.
A systems approach to population control regards the surplus of humans as a impersonal problem, not a snuffling, sniffling, snorting, Cry on Oprah and Everybody Hold Hands kind of problem.
This goes back to the inevitability of population control one way or another. If carrying capacity and dieoff models prove resilient, then all these glorious if disadvantaged people will die
sooner or later. For the cabal it is like watching a horse race.
> IF CO2 levels (caused by population) threaten LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, then it becomes a problem approximately equivalent to the situation of a cop, where, seeing a suspect reach in his pocket must make a decision. We know what the cop would do.
I imagine the politically prudent thing has been to wait and see if liberal society can solve its problems via cultural or economic methods. Failing that, a cabal like the one I suggest isn't going to sit on its hands.
Its no one's fault. We're not smart enough, on the whole, to manage our populations or control our resource impact. We do not have that instinct.
Consider the 1st world. In the USA, women have been liberated and exalted. For a half-century women have controlled most of the wealth and have a lot of power socially and personally. Yet even as birth rates fall, resource use increases.
What evidence do I have of such a cabal? Zero. Yet the fact that I can come up with the idea means that others have, and my own knowledge of biotech suggests a biological control "weapon", or whatever you want to call it, is clearly the "tool" of choice for such a group.
Power distorts morality. The absolutes that the clueless lower classes revere are the social glue that keeps a postindustrial society going even as real returns reverse. At the top, I imagine the difference between killing 1000, a million, or 2 billion to be slight at best. Look at the regard held for human lives in the Iraq adventure by our conventional leadership.
These "caretakers", with their power and wealth, look at the debauched masses of humanity with a sympathy no "normal" person could even fathom. With higher levels of intelligence and capability, thier intuitons on the subject would only dazzle and confuse the masses.
Our best hope is that "they" pull the plug, push the button, or release the virus as soon as possible to save the planet from humanity. In a rarified place in the consciousness of normal people, in a place superceding their egos and tiny spheres of influence, in a place eclipsing their ridiculous narrowminded morality, I believe, would be complete agreement with that wish.
Our redundancy, as individual expressions of a common genome, is irrefutable. Our technocratic societial evolution calls into play the perception of the absolute irrelevancy and obsolescence of many. A new Alpha breed of humans are coming of age, and if they had any brains at all, they'd kill off every last one of the normally-capable people on the planet. Otherwise, the world will be a shithole, stocked to the gills with misery and suffering. At what point in this carnival of pain and destruction does the moral choice of genocide achieve parity with a conventional, bean-couting assessment of suffering, present and future?
In the final analysis, how many people must die to save the Earth? Most. And in some sense, All. I can imagine no less egalitarian a method of shifting population than the one described. Or would you prefer a slow, tortuous path taken by the elite and rich, by genetic and technological manipulation, over a longer period of time? Not enough time left. Our population is growing at a ridiculous rate.
At a certain scale we resemble r-strategists in a petri dish. The impersonality of r-strategists to a conventional mind is horrifying. This genetic set implies that a certain, very large proportion of individuated sets will be destroyed. This is a genetic set that, as a part of survival strategy, produces far more offspring than is necessary. It evolved because of an abundance of resources or competitors or predators. What is more moral, for the Masters of the Universe? Watching humanity devolve into a bunch of warring, squabbling tribal factions, with a die-off over decades with the side effect of complete destruction of the biosphere? Or pressing the "button" and not crying big crocodile tears about it?
Its just a conspiracy theory. It doesn't exist. Sleep well my child.