This is wrong, everyone is allowed to beleive what they want. Even if someone doesn't agree no one should do this. We can't we live in a world where everyone gets along? It doesn't matter if we have our own beliefs we're all living together.
this is sad, you're jumping to conclusions. I never said that and neither do these stones. They say we need to maintain a population of 500,000 NO WHERE does it say we need to kill everyone else...
Also to be perfectly honest if i had to sacrifice myself to help the lives of everyone else on the planet i would without a doubt in my mind.
Sacrifice? Do you really know the real price and meaning of 'sacrifice'?
That's a Saviour's syndrome, a desire to sacrifice to help lives of everyone else. Just wondering if you'd be able to sacrifice yourself to save somebody from your family... then you may think about 'saving the world'.
These stones do imply it. That's enough...
... anybody who knows statistics, and can count and subtract, is able to figure out what "MAINTAINING" humanity under 500,000,000 means.
"Maintain" humanity under 500,000,000. MAINTAIN! KEEP it under 500,000,000! Rather self-evident, don't you think so?
i go to school, i know what maintain means, there's more than one way to get the population down though, we can simply restrict children from all but a few families and wait until the poulation goes down, or we could kill them all...
If you knew that you could bring balance to the world but only if you died would you do it? The answer is obvious to me, it's either selfless or selfish.
You'd be surprised how expensive it is to kill people. When you keep them alive, you can make them work for you. A day of labour is worth more than a bullet by several orders of magnitude, and there is a lot of work in wiping out large amounts of people. You have to round them up, transport them, kill them, dispose of their bodies, pay the guards and the factories and so forth, and of course cover it up, which means bribes and such.
I can do the math to see which is more efficient in the long run, if you'd like.
well telling the population that if they have children it could cause the end of the world isn't actually imposing any totalitarian gov't by any means. certainly it would involve gov't regulation and most people wouldn't like it but it's not totalitarian, it's barely authoritarian actually. That's only one aspect of human life, and if that aspect isn't regulated then it will cease to exist.
Cost is more than a function of currency! In fact, currency is a representation, fundamentally, of labour and material wealth, barter tokens that can be redeemed for a certain amount of either of these two things. It is impossible to argue that a working person in a functioning society does not produce more worth if he is working than if he is dead. A dead man cannot collect, refine, produce or use anything. A living man can produce things that the elite can use to enforce their grip on power or to pass the time.
Please, if we are going to talk conspiricies, at least give our villains credible motivation!
This is wrong, everyone is allowed to beleive what they want. Even if someone doesn't agree no one should do this. We can't we live in a world where everyone gets along? It doesn't matter if we have our own beliefs we're all living together.
It's fine somebody wants to murder you, your brothers/sisters (if you have them), and your parents.
And it's completely fine when he shouts it, and when he funds memorials and statues to commemorate murdering-to-be of you and your family.
this is sad, you're jumping to conclusions. I never said that and neither do these stones. They say we need to maintain a population of 500,000 NO WHERE does it say we need to kill everyone else...
Also to be perfectly honest if i had to sacrifice myself to help the lives of everyone else on the planet i would without a doubt in my mind.
Sacrifice? Do you really know the real price and meaning of 'sacrifice'?
That's a Saviour's syndrome, a desire to sacrifice to help lives of everyone else. Just wondering if you'd be able to sacrifice yourself to save somebody from your family... then you may think about 'saving the world'.
These stones do imply it. That's enough...
... anybody who knows statistics, and can count and subtract, is able to figure out what "MAINTAINING" humanity under 500,000,000 means.
"Maintain" humanity under 500,000,000. MAINTAIN! KEEP it under 500,000,000! Rather self-evident, don't you think so?
i go to school, i know what maintain means, there's more than one way to get the population down though, we can simply restrict children from all but a few families and wait until the poulation goes down, or we could kill them all...
If you knew that you could bring balance to the world but only if you died would you do it? The answer is obvious to me, it's either selfless or selfish.
Rather clear I know that you know what "maintain" means... only can you imagine how really possible is to get down the population?
To restrict reproduction is to impose a tyranny, and a totalitarian system, or simply kill many people.
And the second option, killing off humanity, would be easier than trying to keep the tyranny. :-/ Less expensive. ;-/
You'd be surprised how expensive it is to kill people. When you keep them alive, you can make them work for you. A day of labour is worth more than a bullet by several orders of magnitude, and there is a lot of work in wiping out large amounts of people. You have to round them up, transport them, kill them, dispose of their bodies, pay the guards and the factories and so forth, and of course cover it up, which means bribes and such.
I can do the math to see which is more efficient in the long run, if you'd like.
well telling the population that if they have children it could cause the end of the world isn't actually imposing any totalitarian gov't by any means. certainly it would involve gov't regulation and most people wouldn't like it but it's not totalitarian, it's barely authoritarian actually. That's only one aspect of human life, and if that aspect isn't regulated then it will cease to exist.
It's as simple as that.
A day of labour?
Seriously, the cost of upkeeping a human being:
+ energy consumed
+ food consumed
+ resources consumed
+ others...
Digital/paper revenue is nothing compared with the waste of resources.
Cost is more than a function of currency! In fact, currency is a representation, fundamentally, of labour and material wealth, barter tokens that can be redeemed for a certain amount of either of these two things. It is impossible to argue that a working person in a functioning society does not produce more worth if he is working than if he is dead. A dead man cannot collect, refine, produce or use anything. A living man can produce things that the elite can use to enforce their grip on power or to pass the time.
Please, if we are going to talk conspiricies, at least give our villains credible motivation!