.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers (Read Only) > Discussion

Solve over-population in 1 easy step.

<< < (4/7) > >>

Ἆxule:

--- Quote from: Cheesicle on January 18, 2012, 01:54:11 AM ---Well, I kinda meant 1v1 lol

--- End quote ---

I know :P
But even with what I said, it's not impossible.

but witht he ships and such, it was like maybe 10 or so small ships against the entire British Navy.
That's what I was trying to bring up.

it doesn't matter though, so it's k

Cheesicle:

--- Quote from: Ἆxule on January 18, 2012, 01:56:33 AM ---I know :P
But even with what I said, it's not impossible.

but witht he ships and such, it was like maybe 10 or so small ships against the entire British Navy.
That's what I was trying to bring up.

it doesn't matter though, so it's k

--- End quote ---

Lol well obviously like 10 boats against 300 British warships is impossible...

Unless a typhoon wiped out 9/10 of them and the remaining ships had morons as captains who mistook the other British ships as the enemy.

cogsandspigots:

--- Quote from: Ἆxule on January 18, 2012, 01:50:08 AM ---Anyways, I didn't know this was a joke, partially because I skimmed through everything.

--- End quote ---
OP said this was satire and wasn't to be taken seriously.



Look again, this thread is now warships. (wut?)

Cheesicle:

--- Quote from: cogsandspigots on January 18, 2012, 02:04:36 AM ---OP said this was satire and wasn't to be taken seriously.



Look again, this thread is now warships. (wut?)

--- End quote ---

Yep, it was a satirical essay written by Jonathan Swift in response to the pleads of the people of Ireland (I think?) after several people were starving to death, while the king refused to do anything about it.

For anyone too lazy to read it, here's a basic synopsis of what he said.

As a "solution" to the poverty problem, Swift proposed that the poor people of Ireland sell their children as food for the rich people. This would curb overpopulation and bring income to the poor.

Xrain:

--- Quote from: Nemisous on January 17, 2012, 07:03:19 PM ---...........no.  Spoiler (click to show/hide) Just because you spend the most on your military doesnt mean its the best in the world, china has the largest military in the world and some of the most cutting edge technology yet they spend less than an 8th of what we spend on are military, in fact the US's training standards are far lower then they where during ww2. The army's attrition rate was 22% during WW2, now its just 6% largely to accommodate the women and overweight people, infact the US military has the lowest PFT scores in the world, the USMC is the only exception. also are military hardware is about the same as it was at the end of the cold war.
but i find if funny that you say we dont have any powerful opposition, yet China and Russia have larger and more powerful armies then the US. hell china would even have to attack the US they could ruin us monetarily because they own 70% of are debt.  which is another thing, you talk about this powerhouse economy yet are economy is declining faster than the Chinese's is growing with nearly 10% of Americans unemployed. (i honestly think the percentage is higher). but think of it if the US and the Europeans economies tank, then china's economy would tank, because all the nations rely on each other and the fall of one would cause the fall of many. and if china's economy bit the dust, millions of people would starve, because china has to import alot of goods to sustain its large population.

@blah, no israel has a very small army, well equiped but small. as they have less then 400,000 soldiers keep in mind israel has a population smaller than london's. and 75% of the IDF is conscripts.

--- End quote ---

Comparing military strength legitimately isn't something that could be done by comparing numbers or the amount of money put into hardware and training. Comparing the attrition rate during WWII to now also makes no sense. In WWII we had the draft, every able bodied person for the most part was called to serve, you would naturally have a higher attrition rate as a wider demographic of  people were being called upon.

Think about it, if you called every-single 18-30 year old in the united states right now, our attrition rate would be probably around 22% again or maybe even higher. Two different time periods cant be directly compared all that well in some cases.

Right now Russia is as far as I can tell in a period of confusion over what it really wants. Most of their heavy industrial complexes are still making the exact same hardware that they have been for the past 30 years. Don't get me wrong some of that stuff is pretty damn awesome. But they don't really have any of their engineering dynamos anymore that were responsible for some of their greatest advancements. There are certainly areas in the Russian industrial complex that are making great strides, however on the whole they are somewhat stagnant.

If we were to take every bit of conventional hardware and manpower that we have, and pit it against every bit of hardware and manpower that china has. It is extraordinarily likely that we would end up coming out on top. The reason being that while china has an army that has several times as many people we do. What the US military focuses on is what are called "combat multipliers" or getting more results per soldier. But this really doesn't mean anything.

In reality if china attacked us, it certainly wouldn't be pleasant, and many would die on both sides. But if someone legitimately attacked the US mainland with a full blown assault. I think you would quickly see all of our internal conflict and problems would most likely disappear almost overnight. With the current state of the other countries, the only way I think we would possibly lose to an invasion on US soil is if every single country in the world (at least 90%) attacked us in unison. There simply isn't much you can do when 6.7 billion people are attacking you.

On the same note, unless we have massive support from most of the world, I highly doubt we could successfully invade china. It would take events of astronomical odds to make it happen (read: a plague wipes out most of Asia aka: what happened the the Aztec and such)


As for our economic situation, most of our debt is held to our own country. We could easily get rid of it, just by saying it's not there, but that would collapse the system as we know it. As money is based on how much people believe in it, not on any tangible thing.



Now for overpopulation. It will stabilize, no matter what. What will vary is how big the rises and falls are in the global population as we reach the limit, and fall back down, then rise up again, and fall etc. Each time the rise and falls will get smaller and smaller. The real issue is just minimizing the amount of human suffering that will take place, and getting it to stabilize as painlessly as possible. On the flip side, as technology improves, so too will our capacity to make best use of what we have. Especially if we get fusion power. Anything is possible, all you need is a sufficient quantity of useful energy.


As for the satirical paper, I remember reading about it in high-school, It was a great idea, satire is an excellent way to reach people when other forms of communication fail. As generally the best idea is to throw an idea out there, and use some techniques to guide who you are persuading to come to the conclusion you desire. You can never force someone to truly believe you if you don't let them connect the dots themselves.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page