Might piss some people off but oh well.

[Otto347]

What is the most popular solution to an animal/species problem when it either outgrows its habitat, over eats and destroys its habitat or becomes a general nuisance?

We setup hunting seasons, issue hunting licenses and just find out ways to exterminate (solve) the problem.

Why cant this be done with people? I mean lots of people fit these same categorys, and we can justify killing lots and lots of animals to solve a problem so why cant it be done with people?

And please dont give me the obvious "we're the top of the food chain" crap or "we're human and they're just animals", even within humans there is a pecking order like strongest/weakest, smartest/dumbest.

Also please take this question with a grain of salt, its a hypothetical question I though about while watching the pig bomb documentary (if thats what you call it) on history or discovery.....I cant remember.

[ryguy]

I sort of agree with you, but in a slightly different way. I don't believe in sending aid to third world countries, because the only solution is for some of those people to die off.

However, I did donate to Haiti, because I believe that was out of their control, unless you believe Pat Roberts and they actually had made a pact with the devil.

[jorge1190]

I really think that society today has destroyed the basic human concept of survival of the fittest by trying to make thing equal for everyone.
I'm sure that lots of people think about this but no one would dare to bring it up or do it first in fear of being "flamed" for lack of a better word.

[shiftdrift]

i think we should all go buy guns....and shoot each other whenever. sounds like a great plan.

[theicecreamdan]

Really? There are plenty of other species that are on the list before we are.

And we're already working pretty hard on getting rid of all those brown people, what do they call them? Those people that live in the "middle east" they're called terrorists right? They scare me.

Then we can try another earthquake device somewhere in south america, they owe us money and they haven't paid up.

Originally Posted by ryguy

I sort of agree with you, but in a slightly different way. I don't believe in sending aid to third world countries, because the only solution is for some of those people to die off.

However, I did donate to Haiti, because I believe that was out of their control, unless you believe Pat Roberts and they actually had made a pact with the devil.

Yeah, and just ignore all the history that tells us WHY these places are third world countries. The only person in Haiti that made a pact with the devil was the dictator that took loans from the world bank. The devil is the first world countries that "help" third world countries for their own economic gain.

[ryguy]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

Yeah, and just ignore all the history that tells us WHY these places are third world countries. The only person in Haiti that made a pact with the devil was the dictator that took loans from the world bank. The devil is the first world countries that "help" third world countries for their own economic gain.

The Pat Roberts remark was sarcastic, I guess I didnt come on strong enough with it.

Tell me, WHY are these places third world countries?

[I LUV MY S13]

Originally Posted by jorge1190

I really think that society today has destroyed the basic human concept of survival of the fittest by trying to make thing equal for everyone.
I'm sure that lots of people think about this but no one would dare to bring it up or do it first in fear of being "flamed" for lack of a better word.

if it werent for this equality ALOT of us wouldnt be here, we wouldnt have the things we do have, and we wouldnt do the things we do today

[HyperTek]

I do wish we didnt have the people who have no moral values... i swear where im at, in school i always hear of the shady shit going on. People talking about robberies, stick ups etc. And its like glorified to see peoples faces light up with excitement "wow that foo is a G!!"

The bad thing is these people will reproduce, and their values get passed down thru generations.. Sure eventually these people clean up their acts, but whats done is done and you cant undue that.

I come from a old fashion family and good morals/ have a perfect clean record, and that shit just scares the shit out of me.. knowing that one day, I could get whipped out because I could have something that others might not have, or because I got rims on my ride and someone else wants em. I hate how Hood behavior is soo dam glorified. Please dont say im targeting urban media, i love me some hip hop, but too many people try to live hardcore gangster because thats what they see in movies and media. Don't forget, women love that bad boy image now too.

Wish it was just as easy as whipping them out and starting over with education but we cant do that. The only solution would be to educate from the git go... Make college tuition more affordable, dont allow people to get expelled from high schools etc.

[BustedS13]

eh, we wouldn't be shooting any Americans. plenty of room here.
i guess what i'm saying is if you televise it i'll watch

[jrbump]

Animals actions are controlled by instincts. Human beings have reason, emotion etc.

I think what the OP should do is move somewhere more in line with his ideas, Darfur, Mogadishu, Monrovia come to mind right off the bat.

Lastly I am interested in your thoughts if this solution was being considered by a society more powerful than ours, would it be ok then?

[SR240DET]

Originally Posted by Otto347

What is the most popular solution to an animal/species problem when it either outgrows its habitat, over eats and destroys its habitat or becomes a general nuisance?

We setup hunting seasons, issue hunting licenses and just find out ways to exterminate (solve) the problem.

Why cant this be done with people? I mean lots of people fit these same categorys, and we can justify killing lots and lots of animals to solve a problem so why cant it be done with people?

And please dont give me the obvious "we're the top of the food chain" crap or "we're human and they're just animals", even within humans there is a pecking order like strongest/weakest, smartest/dumbest.

Also please take this question with a grain of salt, its a hypothetical question I though about while watching the pig bomb documentary (if thats what you call it) on history or discovery.....I cant remember.

We have a solution for this and we been using it for quite some time now: ignorance, religion, and war. Take the ignorant people and teach them religion to take the fear away from death then start a war so they kill each other off,essentially, reducing the world population.

[90hatchie]

sometimes the really stupid ones will take care of themselves
like the girl from my town that fell out a window in spain taking a picture

[ronmcdon]

Ppl in the US kill themselves (and/or others) because of stupidity.
We aren't entirely immune to Darwinism, now or then.

[az_240]

Who would you hunt? You might as well join the military.

Reminds me of that It's Always Sunny episode.

[Otto347]

Originally Posted by HyperTek

The bad thing is these people will reproduce, and their values get passed down thru generations.. Sure eventually these people clean up their acts, but whats done is done and you cant undue that.

The one thing that reminds me of is the Gangland program on History. The thought process of the majority of "gangsters" on that show is disturbing. And the fact that almost all the time they show these people teaching this shit to 6 and 7 year olds putting guns in their hands and dressing them up in gang colors. Fuck that, they all need to be taken out and executed shallow grave style. They have NO contribution to society other than to fuck things up then me and you end up paying for them to sit in jail for umteen years. Fuck that.

[sirfallsalot243]

I dont think we should ACTIVELY eliminate people, but I think society makes it too easy for the dumb to survive. Society prevents natural selection from taking place.

[OBEEWON]

War, disease, EVEN "natrual" disasters are man made population control. If you think there should be more, get a government job or apply to get in the Bilderburg group.

I seriously don't understand why people who suggest killing as a solution don't start with themselves????? Not even being funny.

[roninwon]

i think an easy way to start is child limitation laws saying that no couple can have more than 2 kids. that alone would cut down on population

[fckillerbee]

such a hard topic to discuss..... the words i have to use have to be really specific....

I believe in equal rights. To the extent that we are like any other species on this planet. I'm not saying we are equal to dogs, but where I have found this line is where we as humans are comparable to other animals...we breed, we have packs, we have confrontations, and we even kill our own race. Where I don't see the exception for example...is if a dog, who can show all emotions that a human has, will be put down for severely biting a human....usually because of its own situation, however, we are allowed to kill another human, put in timeout like a child, and then re-released into our pack completely capable of doing the same act.

this is where the line is...to me, not equal. So yes, if we can do this to an animal, what makes us any different than hitler killing off jews.

In Denver CO, all pitbulls were put down because they were deemed "unsafe". Now if Hitler was denver, and the jews were pitbulls, how is this any different than what we are doing now?

Iran doesn't want to comply, I would tell them the US is going to drop a bomb the size of russias bomb, and those who don't feel Iran is doing the right thing...can leave. Call me hitler, but that may just be my german coming out in me. lol.

this should be interesting!

[murda-c]

how do you decide who to kill? do you go by financial situation? education level? Health? Intelligence? "whatever as long as i'm not one of them?"

[sirfallsalot243]

Originally Posted by roninwon

i think an easy way to start is child limitation laws saying that no couple can have more than 2 kids. that alone would cut down on population

Good luck with that one. I can hear the hysteria now. "Aint nobody gonna tell me how many kids i can have! I cant support em, but god dammit, im gonna have fourteen of em!"

Then what happens when a woman gets pregnant with her 3rd? Force her to abort it? Pretty fucked up.

[fckillerbee]

Originally Posted by murda-c

how do you decide who to kill? do you go by financial situation? education level? Health? Intelligence? "whatever as long as i'm not one of them?"

benefit to society....

helping the cause...rather than being the cause?

[ronmcdon]

Thinking about this further,

I think the theory still applies somewhat.
Only instead of individual ppl,
We have social groups competing for limited resources.
In nature, it's more or less every creature for itself.
Among modern day human civilization, there are further factors & complexities.

Could be anything from corporations, governments, countries, etc.
Some cease to exist because they cannot compete.
Some dwindle in influence.
For instance, you could say the bad economy rooted out companies like Wamu that weren't prepared.
You could also say, as a country, we (the US) aren't quite to super-power we once were.

Therefore, its negligible to consider the survival of individual members of society.
We are merely a part of our society.
This is especially the case, for better or worse, in any society that promotes any welfare program.
The consequences fall on the state, more so than the individual.

The same theory applies more or less.
It's just the variables that have changed.

[spooled240]

i agree w/ this in a way.

I feel that by making welfare programs, section 8 housing and all sorts of government aid we are in a way creating a weaker human race that's dependent. In nature, it's the animals that can feed themselves and the ones that are intelligent and physically fit to stay alive. With humans, all you have to do is have 4 kids, file for welfare/unemployment and go to mcdonalds everyday.

i know welfare and unemployment is supposed to be temporary but thats rarely the case.

[dert420sx]

i've never condoned the systematic slaughter of animals just because they encroached onto human territory or their numbers exceeded our comfort level.
it's not ours in the first place. animals will just do what comes instictively, like search for food. humans are the only ones with rational thought and should be held to higher morals.

but again as mentioned, HOW do you choose who goes and who stays?
and maybe most importantly, WHO gets to choose? a man or woman? a white/black/asian/latino/etc. person?
by doing so, you are ultimately playing god and controlling other people's destinies for them.

there was mention of contribution to society. should that necessarily mean money? what about people who were born with disabilities that was completely out of their control? don't they have just as much of a chance to try to live a productive life as someone with all their parts intact/functioning?

why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

[fckillerbee]

Originally Posted by dert420sx

i've never condoned the systematic slaughter of animals just because they encroached onto human territory or their numbers exceeded our comfort level.
it's not ours in the first place. animals will just do what comes instictively, like search for food. humans are the only ones with rational thought and should be held to higher morals.

but again as mentioned, HOW do you choose who goes and who stays?
and maybe most importantly, WHO gets to choose? a man or woman? a white/black/asian/latino/etc. person?
by doing so, you are ultimately playing god and controlling other people's destinies for them.

there was mention of contribution to society. should that necessarily mean money? what about people who were born with disabilities that was completely out of their control? don't they have just as much of a chance to try to live a productive life as someone with all their parts intact/functioning?

why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

very well put. I second this post!

[OBEEWON]

Originally Posted by spooled240

i agree w/ this in a way.

I feel that by making welfare programs, section 8 housing and all sorts of government aid we are in a way creating a weaker human race that's dependent. In nature, it's the animals that can feed themselves and the ones that are intelligent and physically fit to stay alive. With humans, all you have to do is have 4 kids, file for welfare/unemployment and go to mcdonalds everyday.

i know welfare and unemployment is supposed to be temporary but thats rarely the case.

^^Smart dude. You are absolutely right.

Just one correction. Welfare is designed to keep you in your place. It actually has built in penalizations for moving upward that cut you off before you get your feet under you, so you in effect fall right back down.

[amdnivram]

Originally Posted by dert420sx

i've never condoned the systematic slaughter of animals just because they encroached onto human territory or their numbers exceeded our comfort level.
it's not ours in the first place. animals will just do what comes instictively, like search for food. humans are the only ones with rational thought and should be held to higher morals.

but again as mentioned, HOW do you choose who goes and who stays?
and maybe most importantly, WHO gets to choose? a man or woman? a white/black/asian/latino/etc. person?
by doing so, you are ultimately playing god and controlling other people's destinies for them.

there was mention of contribution to society. should that necessarily mean money? what about people who were born with disabilities that was completely out of their control? don't they have just as much of a chance to try to live a productive life as someone with all their parts intact/functioning?

why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

I think that because we are humans we want to see ourselves as more than just a mere animal. We create beliefs which connect us and make us closer to a god. This makes most people believe that because they are close to or made in the image of a creator that we can claim this world as ours to use as we see fit. Even without that same belief other variations which derive from what we see as rationality gives us this pedestal that as a species we stand on. And if this is the case, and we value moral and rational being more than those who live off of instinct. Can we then say that those who are mentally challenged and therefore cannot themselves be rational or hold a similar moral code if any are worth the same value as a immoral animal. Therefore they would be subhuman? I dont believe there is such a existing superiority based on either of these. Without considering these, the only reason why i see not killing others is so that they don't kill me. An agreement among species in which we agree to coexist. I dont do it because its immoral or any other reason. Its just convenient not to have to worry.

[spooled240]

Originally Posted by OBEEWON

^^Smart dude. You are absolutely right.

Just one correction. Welfare is designed to keep you in your place. It actually has built in penalizations for moving upward that cut you off before you get your feet under you, so you in effect fall right back down.

true, but that place that welfare keeps people in is not sustainable. Look at the animals that we take care of. We give them food everyday so they don't have to hunt and they sit on their ass all day getting fat lol. If they were just released in the wild one day just like if welfare and other government assistance was cut off from certain people, they would probably die.

Nature is cruel, the concept of survival of the fittest is cruel. Certain people would starve to death if we didn't help them out and I know I couldn't watch people starve and die right in front of me. I think we as humans try to be humane so we have programs that help each other out...but that comes with consequences, like an astronomical deficit lol

[ryguy]

Originally Posted by dert420sx

i've never condoned the systematic slaughter of animals just because they encroached onto human territory or their numbers exceeded our comfort level.

The idea behind opening up the hunting quota on certain populations is because there is a natural ebb and flow of populations of animals when they consume all the food in their habitat, and a large population dies off regardless. At least this way, we get delicious deer jerky out of the deal.