Guys, I'm really ashamed of you, nobody voted for the second answer (I kind of though it would be either the- or second most popular (after #1), guess I was wrong...), even though one option was suggested right here (space colonization). Plus none of you seem to trust elected polticians... which just proves you guys are smarter than your avatrs suggest
.
Quote:
|
and.. whole thing bout making genocyde s bit nazi.. and unethical
|
it's not supposed to be
genocide, but it could be made into one if you let biased people run it.
Quote:
|
A world where billions are killed and strict limits are forced on the survivors freedoms is not a utopia.
|
true. it's more like what sci-fi writers call anti-utopia, but who'd want to bulid
that?
Quote:
|
a predator shows up and kills off the populations/parts of it
|
historicaly other people proved to be the most effective in this role, didn't they?
allso, I suppose if we just colonised 10 more class M planets (you know, earth like), and then have the restrictive polices instated, we wouldn't actualy need to kill those people.
Or we could just be sent to semi-habitable (terraformabe?) planets and die colonising them (ever read "how the steel was strengened"?)
P.S. BTW, is it true that lemmings jump off cliffs, when there is an overpopulation? that seems counter-evolutionary (the ones that didn't jump survive, to pass on their genes)...