Everyone of you knows, that today the world is polluted and overpopulated, so what would you say to the following proposal (I'm just curious):
90% of the world population is killed (painlessly. maybe even pleasurably...?), supposed ly leaving us with the best and brightest, and then strict birth- and pollution controls are inposed (the former is needed to ensure the situation doesn't worsen, as well as allow us to empliment the later without starving and nakeding half of the world). the whole process would be regulated by a UN cometee (with peope from all nations/religions haveng representation), and would take about a decade.
Now if you would support it (<cough>reak<cough>), what would you do if one day you got a pink slip telling you, you were supposed to be 'terminated' in 30 days (which gives you enough time to say your goodbyes to everyone, or do something you allways wanted, but thoought you'd do later)?

There's one option missed - "My life is my possession and no other has any right to it as no other made me live or they'll trigger violence in the name of self-defense".

Like Scatty said.

USA and Canada first rules are the Liberty Charts.

Your plan go against everything I like to defend. I'd be happy to enter war just for that reason. I hope that the fact that I'm from the country which is considered the most pacifist country of the world (Canada) give you a good indication on how I would never even consider your "plan"...

Usually, when people try to kill other people, they fight back, so this is pretty much impossible to do.
And the idea sucks anyway. Who would decide what people would be killed? Besides leaving only 10% of the whole population is bound to wipe out whole countries.

I would support it, and even volunteer for being killed (even though nobody may believe it), as long as the method of killing a person is quick and absolutely painless.

There's only one major problem: Human nature.
Everyone would want to be one of the 10% that are not killed. Everyone getting a pink slip would instantly protest against it. Humans are just too damn selfish to do such a thing. I guess even if it would prevent judgement day from happening, everyone would just say "As long as I can't live on, everyone else can die, too, I don't care"

And just in case:
Although I'm criticising human nature here, as if I weren't human, I am, and I'm probably no better than the majority of people. But I surely would volunteer for such an act, if it really would be necessary.

If it would prevent "judgement day" from happening, like you said, I would hapilly volunteer for this. However I'm pretty sure this won't happen in my life time and this is what make all the difference in the world.

Well I'm against it because it would be only an excuse for genocide...

However I think that basically patriots think this way, I mean they would give their life to make other lives better, but what they forget to mention is that they would kill for that too...

I would like to clarify a few things (I wonder if anyone read the first post...):
how about option 4?
the above (in the first post) mentioned cometee, people who you either elect, or who are picked by the people you ellect.
ah yes, but lest's not forget te lessons of frech revoultion (I lost count, so it's the one with Robespierre)- If you exceute people in small portions, while leaving the rest to belive they have a chance (and they do, after all someone has to mop the floors and work at factories, right?), you can kill a hell lot of people.



and finaly, my own question:judgement day? what? :blink: I was merely talking about enviroment. besides,if JD would exist, wouldn't you be called from the dead waiting area to be tried anyway, so what does it matter when it will happen?

this is a very...odd...idea...

more clarifications:
When (in 4) I say "offer", I actualy mean offer, as in "you can either take it, or leave it, it's your call", not just force them to sign.