feillyne
joined
« L'homme c'est rien — l'oeuvre c'est tout. » Je suis né et je vis à Babylone, là où les enfants tuent, dealent et volent...
Georgia Guidestones vandalised
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
:-D
Hate to say it... if the bottom 80% of society dies... how does the top 20% feed itself? Who will they sell the things they manufacture to? How will they manage to wipe out all those people? How will they transport them to the death camps? How will they dispose of the bodies? Where will they get the fuel and systems to do this? How do they get everyone (The Elite is a pretty broad category) to agree to such a morally terrifying plan without any of these people defecting? How will they prevent the targeted segments of the population from revolting? How will they ensure global cooperation with small rogue states? How will they deal with the guilt afterwards (is everyone above a certain earning bracket a sociopath?) Wouldn't the countinued labour of these 80% of the population be worth more in the long run (by every system we have to count economic worth, the answer is yes) If they have answers to all these questions, why haven't they done it yet?
Do they need so many people to e.g. harvest crops? Since we live in a world where technology allows faster and more convienient gathering of resources without having to employ tens of thousands of people.
Why should they want to sell anything?
Seriously, sometimes resources and items are more valuable than worthless money papers (except the paper they were printed on).
Even in mediaeval times you could wipe out millions, simply by bringing in exotic diseases.
And now, in these highly futuristic times (il futuro è adesso!), they would only lack manforce to stop revolts, so they must have to hide instead of standing in an open confrontation.
The question is not whether they CAN.
The question is whether they WOULD.
And knowing faultful, sinful, mistake-ridden, erroneous, less or more retarded in one way or another, people (nobody is a ******* saint, and somebody saying so is even farther from saintdom than other people not claiming it)... such things always remain on the brink of fulfillment.
Only human "sinful" indecision, and a greedy fear of losing everything they worked on (materialism), stops them from doing that.
I have no doubt the average human being would, at the very least, stand by as 80% of the human population was wiped out.
However, you could never, ever get anyone to agree one WHICH 80% gets wiped out. If everyone took such a thing seriously (say, if some aliens were holding a gun to planet earth and told us we had to wipe out 4 out of 5 people, or if, as may indeed be the case, the environment degrades to the point where earth can only maintain a population of five hundred million) we would more than likely end up wiping out 100% of the people on the planet trying to figure out who to kill.
Also, please look up the logistical systems that propped up the holocaust, where a single government attempted to wipe out a series of minorities numbering in mere millions who were dispised by the majority of the population. An operation to signifigantly reduce the population of earth would be orders of magnitude larger and would take place over a timescale long enough that infastructural maintainance to keep such a system going would become a major concern, for example. It would be essentially impossible to kill 4 out of 5 people in a reasonable timeframe with current resources even if you somehow managed to get that 80% of the population to accept their fates quietly, which of course is totally unrealistic owing to humanity's basic drive for self-preservation.
There are much more real, much more pressing issues like resource shortage, environmental collaspe, economic breakdown, climate change, religious fanatics with access to superweapons, discrimination, acid rain, the ozone layer,smog, overpopulation, ignorance, oppressive dictatorship, and potential natural extinction events to be focusing on this nonsense.
Religious fanatics? It's rather secular officials, especially from unstable Israel state, that own these 'superweapons'.
And still, you miss the point that governments are best-funded to plant some boxes with diseases scarier than leprosy, and they own more advanced weapons to literally shoot people whether they're standing or charging.
The point nobody reasonable would risk sending a soldier, that is MORALLY conscious in one way, to kill civilians, or even masses of charging psychos.
He could break mentally, sooner or later.
Killing population with a nuke is something different, though.
Even if 80% of people will actually be wiped out, there will be enought people to work on farms, dispose bodys, and etc. Also, considering, how much does all of the world population actually consume, and how much they atleast worth of it, not mentioning producing something, it makes interesting point.
There'll never be enought resources for such a big amount of people. The question, as feillyne said, is when they will do this.
Looking at the Malthusian theory and some rumors and sights of propoganda of "new food agenda", by wich I mean official cannibalism, all this makes me smile in a strange way. There's even some interesting things appearing on this topic and not only on this. If you interested Youtube.com . Dont take it as full truth, but as joke neither, anylise (translation in sub is avaliable).
And mentioning
"There are much more real, much more pressing issues like resource shortage, environmental collaspe, economic breakdown, climate change, religious fanatics with access to superweapons, discrimination, acid rain, the ozone layer,smog, overpopulation, ignorance, oppressive dictatorship, and potential natural extinction events to be focusing on this nonsense."
Doesnt make it look better. I would consider wiping 80% of world population, or using them as khm, pretty good way to save the world, If I would look from sub objective point of view.
All this, wich was mentioned in quote up there, are caused by humans, and as there is some aphorism in russian, "No human, no problem."
Focusing your thoughts on sentence wich you see on photo is useless, and arguing about it is useless also. It's fact, but a bit coloured by subjective point of view. I mean part about "Elite".
If you think I'm wrong or said something wich you havent understood clearly, I would gladly listen and reply if there will be need.
Thank you, have a good day.
I'd have to mainly agree with open_sketchbook on this one. The destruction of 80% of the population of the planet is near impossible... First, actually getting everyone to cooperate would be insanely difficult, and would probably sooner result in a mass war than the execution of this plan. Nations, individuals, whole races, would resist such an idea and would quite possible rather take their chances than become part of this "elite race". And even if cooperation did happen, hiding 20% of the population away while abolishing the other 80% would take a continent about the size of, oh, say Europe if cramped, or just thousands of miles of well stored bunkers.
Actually wiping out the population would be next to impossible as well. Nuclear missiles could not destroy the population without hitting every single square inch of populated landmass, which would probably cause nuclear winter and immense amounts of radiation. A series of diseases would have to be extremely advanced; for if there is a cure manufactured for this 20%, I can assure you that some scientist in the 80% would figure it out before the whole population is wiped out. Actual useage of force, say, concentration camps or simple shootings, would of course not work when so woefully outnumbered.
Life after this would be nothing compared to what it once was, which is the main reason this could never work. The bottom 80% does most of the more dirty work (farms, industry, etc.) than the top 20% (Offices, corporations, etc.). Why simply kill 80% of the population? I'd say its more likely that nobody would ever do anything, countries would fall into chaos and overpopulation, and the rich would win out not by military dominance but rather by maintaining their power with what the human beings worship, money :P