Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Infact, every leader of state who is despised for genocide is necessary.

Imagine for a moment that every person who died in World War 2 survived it, and then bred. Now imagine their children breeding, now imagine their children breeding. 63 million people died as a result of that war. 37 million people died as a result of World War 1. 642,980 were purged by Stalin.

World War 1.
3.5 Generations (25 years) have past since The Great War.
37 million died, as a result (not counting deaths due to lack of medical supplies), let us assume that they would have bred, 37,000,000 multiplied by 3.5 = 129,500,000 people alive.

World War 2,
2.5 generations have past since World War 2.
63 million died.
63,000,000 multiplied by 2.5 = 157,500,000 people alive.

From both great wars there are 287,000,000 at the very least. but more likely 1,722,000,000 people.

That is not even beginning to include the many who have died in africa or south east asia since then due to american propped up genocidal dictators.

We obviously need another large scale war to take place in Africa, South America, South East Asia and United States in order to lessen the worlds population. Similar to the Black Plague we need what Europe needed, a population decimation so that the world doesnt turn into a desert faster.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

the US is nowhere near being overpopulated.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Indeed. One trip driving across Texas makes that abundantly clear.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

The reason for the extermination of people in the USA is that they are causing the most damage to the worlds health. if a significant population were to go, the health might improve.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Just out of curiosity, were you planning on volunteering to be casualty #1 for whatever method of mass extermination is employed? After all, by not propagating you would potentially lessen the population of the world by the millions if you go down the time line far enough.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

When youre trying to troll, its better to say things which are close to the truth and just minorly fallacious.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Medical scientific progress means life expectancy rises creating a population issue.
Required - less births to cope with the numbers, not war, extermination or any other factor that requires life to be exintinguished.

People tended to have huge families because surviving childhood was unlikely.
Western world on the most part doesnt do this any more.
Re-education of the whole world to this principle would slow this growth immensely.

A cull thro war upsets - look at the reactions to recent small wars to see that.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

An increase in life expectancy without an increased birth-rate to compensate results in an aging population and not enough workers. This is the problem which many European countries are currently facing - they need a higher birthrate, not a lower one.

Even without the humanitarian/rights issues, a war would be a terrible way to deal with overpopulation since most of the people who died would be of working age. If you wanted to have large numbers of people killed, youd presumably be better off with something which is more likely to target the elderly than the young (eg disease).

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

A higher birth rate is only a short term solution. When this new generation gets old you'll need an even higher birth rate and so and so on and where does it all end???

A much better solution would simply be to increase the retirement age.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Although, pushing up retirement ages would only proove a temporary solution. Once you hit senile grannies with alzheimers working on counters, it comes down to "oh shit this ain't working anymore".

Indeed, coping with numbers. One of the most inhumane of recent descisions would be the one made by China. Only one child will be supported by the state. What follow-ups this causes (ie. China, the country of men, and men alone, in fifty years) is a secondary issue, but the primary thing is birth rates went down, no matter how inhumane and ugly, they releaved a lot of ecological pressure on global level.

And it's not alone a question of education. Education will proove very useless if the poor countries never manage to set up basic infrastructure. If the rich countries continue ripping off them off productions such as mineral mines, yeah, you can educate the Africa to harness diamonds, metal, and whatever it is you want, and then buy it off cheap from them and sell it back with ripoff prices, but the Africa won't change of it. It's a matter of both cultural and economical adaptation too. As refered on the thread regarding socialism, if the rich countries abolished subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products, we'd have 150 million poor people less in the world on a very short term of twenty years.

Additionally, the question really goes, what's wrong with Africa and South America. Africa especially. Down to earth, we can compare them to other industrialized nations that were behind at some stage. The East Block in Europe is currently faring well on it's road to development, and the birth rates are low. China managed to push down birth rates drastically (currently it's semi-statistical semi-real, but it will go towards more factual change when time passes and people realize it better), and they're at the moment one of the big investment magnets because of the expected explosive growth. The same applies to the other tigers of Asia.

Yet, we have Africa. Probably due to corruption, culture, and clan structures the continent is a mess worse than my hair. Really, they need to realize to start changing things, and the change must also come from themselves. As we've seen in Iraq, it can be hard to try force people to change if they're against it themselves. The situation in Africa is a little different, but in general, if we compare it to other places, we can say the culture is just part reclutant in adapting to certain requirements of "modern development". This, together with the structural issues caused by Europeans and the great country borders (imagine three Forests around a desk drawing lines which "negroes" they want and which "negroes" who gets), and the utterly devious ripping off if not straight robbery commited by the rich countries on economical level add up that we really won't be seeing Africa developing any time soon.

South American has similar problems with the fact that US owns the infrastructure there and the locals are pressed into being puppeted by US consumers wanting cheap coffee. The other day last century, the South American coffee producers attempted to produce an OPEC-like agreement on coffee exports to push up the price of global market coffee to make them richer (Yes, I understand this could have had an oil millionaire the rest drinking mud water -effect too). So, the Brazilian government, in all it's cunning, bought the coffee, and sold it on cheaper to keep the prices low. And the America continued getting cheap coffee. And I bet in Europe Starbucks was ever happy.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Though I agree that population control is necesary I believe disease is much more effective. For example the AIDS epidemic is estimated to have claimed about 3 million lives this year. Though this seems pale in comparison to the 63 million that WW2 claimed, with about 40 million infections the disease is here to stay and claim many more lives over time.

In other light, I believe these dictators/tyrants contribute something else to the world: The line between what is good and evil.
They represent what in our eyes is "evil". And what we do is supposedly "good".
Now, without the dictators/tyrants symbolising our definition of "evil", the definition of "evil" would shift (and so would "good") and society might look very different from what it looks like now.

I recognise their contribution in the limitation of the population I do believe that their influence on a social level is much greater than people think, perhaps even greater than anyone can imagine.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

And that's a "good" thing, why?

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

The major issue which seems to be mostly being skimmed over is that the ecological footprint of your average human being / westerner / american is getting worse and worse by the year. Sure, there may be physical room in North America and other places, but

Wealth is not an infinite source.
Resources are not infinite.

Ridiculous ideas such as increasing the birth rate will only result in a worse resource crunch, and will intensify capitalism's race to the bottom.

Thats of course ignoring the environmental effects of there being even more of us wanting to live like westerners, the two are intertwined

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I don't understand what you mean. Should dictators/tyrants not influence our view of good and evil?
There can be no "good" without a definition of "evil".

What do you think? Would it be better if people like Hitler and the like would not have existed? Or would it be better if our norm of "good" would be more towards what is "evil" for us now? Or should "good" be more "good"?
Is it good that just over 6 billion people walk this earth? Would it be better if it were 10 billion and those poor sods in all those wars would not have died because "evil" in its current form did not exist?
Would it be better if all people of all countries and religions got along just fine and we could all happilly sing songs around a big campfire?

You should clarify why you believe that the influence of tyranny as a symbol of evil on our social system is a "bad" thing.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Why setting the definition of 'evil' so high such a good thing. 'Oh it doesn't matter that we killed 150,000 people in Iraq because Saddam Hussein killed even more people.'

this a question that can't be answered because to do so would ignore the impact they still have on international politics today. It is quite possible that without the holocaust the state of Israel would never have been created and the Middle East might be (slightly) less chaotic.

the end does not justify the means.

What?

End does not justify the means. If those people were alive then resources would expire far earlier. It could be argued that this would then bring about a revolutionary state of discontent.

there is no justification for mass-murder.

What?

How about because it helps to mask the tyranny we face every day from our own economic and political system whose repressive and murderous actions can be carried out because the other people are 'evil'.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

so what you're trying to say is that 100 million less dead people would have given us a worldpopulation of 7,6 billion instead of 5,9 now.
(the worldpopulation in 1910 was about 1,8 billion, in 1940 it was 2,3).

i think your calculation is somewhat flawed, also because you're not taking into account how many extra lives were gained from war. in holland we had a babyboom after WW II for example; people have more sex during/after war. but you can also think of examples likes the nazi breedingprogram, the american soldiers in vietnam etc.

interesting topic though.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I thought Stalin killed an awful lot more people than that. In any case, this is such a vacuous thought that your head should by all rights have imploded upon conceiving it.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

If all the fatties in America died, the world would flip on its' axis and the North Pole would become the South Pole.

I read it in National Geographic, so it must be true!

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Indeed. Quite a few things written after WW1 note the effects on Britain and France (and presumably Germany) of taking hundreds of thousands of a nations healthiest, fittest young adult men and then slaughtering them pointlessly.

If we're endulging in fascist fantasies and abandoning morality completely then wouldn't eugenics be a lot easier and safer than starting a war which could potentially kill everyone in the world if nukes were used?

I mean in the UK there's 2.8m on disability living allowance, a few more million over 75, another 80k in prison. Quite a few million people voted in that Pop Idol thing, so they can be included. I'm sure we can get hold of the mailing list for the various boy/girl band groups to be added in. May as well solve religious strife in one go and kill all Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. Kids who play music loudly on the bus. The 1/3rd of the population who are overweight. Oh, and anyone who does annoying accents and thinks they're hilarious.

Once we've loaded those lot into the ovens I'm pretty sure we'd be alright.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Surely wealth is an infinite source. To be wealthy just means you're better off than x% of the population.



On topic, I doubt that the major world wars and mass genocides throughout the past 100 years or so have contributed to any kind of population decrease. As someone (KoeN?) has already said, we experienced a baby boom to counteract that after WW2. This is all entirely hypothetical as we don't know what would have happened, had these events not taken place.

Somewhere like Switzerland wasn't really involved in any of the wars. Have they suffered a gigantic population rise in comparison to countries who DID drop in population?

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

That's talking about two different things I think.

Wealth is infinite in the sense it's subjective. I might consider myself wealthy for collecting all the Dandy comic annuals from 1983 to 2001 (inclusive) but that doesn't mean anyone else does.

Wealth is finite in the sense in most cases in our economy it is dependent on / comes from finite resources. The amount of "stuff" people can have is highly variable but it not unlimited.

I don't think either statement is particularly helpful though.No, and that's another flaw in the original concept. Population growth is never even, and the countries involved in WW1 and WW2 are the ones with very low population growth today (if we exclude immigration).

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Clearly, older people have more wealth at their command than youngsters, so the best alternative is to purge everyone over sixty! Oh shit, what am I saying. Forget that I said that. Bad idea! Bad idea!

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

It pretty much is, since value is to a large extent independent of natural resources and depends on subjective evaluations of utility. When picasso doodled on a bit of paper, he created £10000 of value out of nowhere.

This one is more tricky. Resources have no independent existence outside the human world, in the sense that a physical object only counts as a resource if we can do something with it. Oil wasnt a 'resource' 1000 years ago before we had any way to use it, and uranium wasnt a resource 100 years ago. If by 'resources arent infinite' you mean "oil will run out one day" then thats obviously true, but by the time that day comes it may be that we have the technology to use another natural object as a resource in large amounts, whether its sun, wind, atoms or seawater. I dont think theres any genuine reason to believe that resources, in the general sense of the word, will ever run out and the burden of proof would certainly be on anyone claiming that they will.

Its misleading to think of natural resources as being objects lying in the world which we stumble across and use - resources are created by technology through its ability to transform nature. The limits of resources are the limits of science and engineering.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

crude oil is being used for atleast 3000 years actually (making medicines, lighting, to waterproof ships and structures). uranium was discovered in 1789.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Yeah fair enough, I meant that neither of them were used as energy sources.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I've got my hopes on aids, may it exterminate all the scum of the earth in the coming year

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Similarly, Uranium Oxide has been used for ~2000 years, for a yellow colouring (hence the name of the powdered oxide step of the refinement process, "yellowcake").

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Add in the Christians too.

Will you marry me?

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I may be wrong but i always thought that Sparta preceeded facism...

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I don't think AIDS will cut it. It just doesn't spread effectively and lethally enough.

I'd be happy on some enhanced form of diahorrea. It'd make certain parts of the world literally drown in liquid shit. Uh. Well, it'd solve a lot of problems.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I think this applies to Malak too.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

I'm on the disability living allowance (although I think it's just called "Income Support" in my case!). Does this mean Dante wants me burnt in an oven? :(

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Disease is seemingly the most efficient way of sorting this kind of thing out; the highest mortality rates of most diseases are generally the young and the elderly or infirm, leaving the still-breeding and physically-capable population to, on the whole, thrive.

It also doesn't, in my opinion, seem unlikely that if we were to reach the edge of the Earth's capacity to sustain us in terms of natural resources then disease would 'thin the herd' in that those incapable of acquiring sufficient resources to survive (food, clean water, which we'll here call the 'weak') would be more susceptible to disease and therefore death.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that population control is an emergent property of any resource-constrained system.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Overpopulation is dependent on infrastructure and technological advancement as well. Agriculturally speaking the world is nowhere near it's carrying capacity. Anyways the word "necessary" is undefined and stupid.

Re: Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito... all were needed.
 

Punching your mother in the back of the head upon ejaculation is ALWAYS necessary.