The Human Sterilization Project

hypewaders

Save Changes
Registered Senior Member
With fewer humans in future, our descendants will be far wealthier and adjusted than we: Earth would become very abundant again without one species overrunning the system's equilibrium.

So: I propose that we disarm the population bomb soon, with a cleverly engineered, highly infectious virus that will render at least 75% of humanity reproductively sterile.
 
I support your plan. How would this virus work? Is it selective in attacking inferior human beings, or does it just attack anyone? Perhaps you could unleash it on a country and blame it on terrorists. However, there are conspiracy nuts who think that AIDS was created by a secret gentic facility to kill mankind (yet it failed, because it's only ravaging Africa, where they have no significant decline in population.)
 
Prosperity is the answer, not chemistry

Are we being just a little impatient in addition to highly imperious? There are several threads here on SciForums reporting a growing consensus that the population bomb has stopped ticking and will indeed begin to implode on itself. I think the current predictions are that the earth's population will peak out at right around ten billion well before the end of this century, and then start shrinking.

The reason is that prosperity invariably lowers birth rates. "The West," as we call it, has already dropped below replacement level. The only reason the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security will still be in the black when you youngsters retire is that immigrants are still flocking to our shores and contributing to the system.

During the era of the Soviet Empire, the birth rate in all the satellite countries was well below replacement level. They were desperate to maintain their populations and gave incredibly generous tax and maternity benefits to new mothers. But it didn't work. Everyone realized that the instinct we inherited from our Neolithic ancestors -- that you'd better have lots of children so a couple of them survive to care for you when you're older -- just wasn't true any more.

It's even happening in the Third World. As per capita GDP in many of the poorest countries has increased from less than a hundred bucks a year to several hundred, the average family size has dropped from twelve children to eight.

The most effective contraceptive is prosperity. If you want to lower the human race's birth rate faster, vote for leaders who will do their best to improve the lot of the planet's poorest inhabitants. They will do the rest.
 
Why bother with Bioweaponry?

Biological weaponry can be fun and all- But it's slow, and can be contained; unless a large enough party deals it out. Consider all of the options?

-'Computer-virus' much more damaging. Harder to deploy, for the government facilities though, since I doubt they are in direct connection to the internet.

-'Nuclear' -The only WMD I will name here. But why? Plutonium/Uranium is simple to gather, if placed in lead containers. Crude parts can be gathered, for a low-yield bomb. The only problems? -Carrying the multi-ton device (I doubt any civilian has information from projects like the 'Davy Crocket' weapon or those nuclear mines. How about thsoe briefcase bombs, hrmm? Much easier to use, if a bit looer yield and much harder to manufacture) and actually enriching the material enough. Ick.

-Dirty Bomb- Boring idea, yes. Well publicized as what will probably happen .. *Blah blah* x..x 'But, it's a simple way to clear out a section of land for whatever reason; Economically important, military value, civillian ... so forth... just make sure you put enough radioactive material in it, or an effective material (Highly Radioactive .. Cesium, Uranium..) so ..

ElectroMagnetic Weaponry- Large radius. Barely anything is hardened nowadays. Portable. Cheap. Duh. ^^ -Anyone see that 'Popular Science' or 'Popular Mechanics' issue two years ago that described how to create a $500 EMP bomb? Useful. ^^

Conventional weapons- The truth is, guns are ineffective. If you think of conventional weapons, you think bombs, rifles, pistols, but why bother? Create an object .. let's say .. incendiary.. (Spelling?) .. Manufacture a small group of the things .. spread them out to different, but key structures (Company buildings .. military .. government .. critical civillian buildings..) and leave them for a week or two and set the things off. The point of this example? -The waiting period allows you to be left alone, since people generally tend to believe an attack is carried out moments or days after it initially occured. Not two weeks prior to the strike. (Remember, incendiary = Fire by the way. Or, simply, long term burning. So, we'd be talking about .. I dunno .. exterior or interior electronics? -Too bad wood isn't a serious construction material in most things anymore..) -And, if you still remember what I said above- there is a second reason. Conventional weapons are rarely thought of being used on a serious scale. What are the main two weapons, as said? Bombs and guns. Bombs are hard to sneak in, surely, unless you have something small (But effective) like TNT or a C4 item .. and .. well .. guns are guns. But, people generally forget there are alot more types of weaponry out there, then that..

-Humans- Manipulation, easy. Provide a good-enough sounding idea to a group of people, who believe you and are willing to take action, provide them with means of achieving this idea; that fits them all, and go forth with it.

-x-x-x-x-x-

Another thought on the manipulation 'factor', being a civillian, you have no real importance to the government. So, what? -Falsify an attack on a critical structure (Conventional?) and blame it on another group. This serves two purposes; both drawing attention away from what they should focus on (Terrorists/cults/groups in general, and whatever they used to get weapons 'Inside the country') and to make the people aware that they are vulnerable. If they are vulnerable, they will fear. And, as generally said, fear is the most effective weapon of any.





-Given, most of these will require a fairly large group to agree with what your thinking, as they only address a country or two. (I'm in the U.S., so these ideas are geared towards it's own defenses and ideas.. etc.) But .. well .. if you really want this..?


-And, I know, this goes way off the topic of Biology ... but ... eh', so what?! ^^ xD
 
Originally posted by hypewaders
With fewer humans in future, our descendants will be far wealthier and adjusted than we: Earth would become very abundant again without one species overrunning the system's equilibrium.

So: I propose that we disarm the population bomb soon, with a cleverly engineered, highly infectious virus that will render at least 75% of humanity reproductively sterile.

I'd have thought that with women having fewer children in developed countries, one would not have to "disarm the population bomb". It is happening naturally. With so many women deciding to put aside the notion of having children until so much later or not having children at all, the population growth is slowing down. Plus add to that countries like China and India, where the birth of boys is so highly sought, to the point of female babies being killed at birth, and in African nations where whole generations are being wiped out due to AIDS, why would we need to unleash a virus to stop the population growth?



:eek:
 
hypewaders

So who do you propose be killed off then? Or sterilized? As said before the human population estimations have gone downward, and with further development, and liberalization in the 3rd world children shouldn't be so prevalent. Also look at states in the former USSR and co. their population is going to implode. For instance Russia is now at around 144 million, by 2015 around 133 million, and estimates say by 2050 around 75 million. I think the problem I have with your idea is that you think or someone thinks that they have a right to sterilize ppl. It's rather sickening non?
 
Originally posted by hypewaders


So: I propose that we disarm the population bomb soon, with a cleverly engineered, highly infectious virus that will render at least 75% of humanity reproductively sterile.

As much as you may be concerned about the population problem the matters come down to the fact that you have no right to sterilize anyone without their permission. Also 75% is a little high no?...you may just doom the human species with such a high rate of infertility.

Also how do you go about deciding who gets the treatment or not?
 
75% is way to low, I say 100% and forced genetic engineering for all children. Then again in 50-100 years humans will be obsolete in comparison to cyborgs, biorobots and AI. By then it might be best to implement mass “upgrading” and convert humans into superior forms (enforced infertility of course) forms that take up a lot less space and energy and also increasing cognitive capacity many thousand fold… and for those thrill seekers or rough riders we can have humen-like bodies for renting and leasing.
 
No I'm just being realistic… the only humans left well be fundamentalist, best to give them respect now. ;)
 
WCF, you are surely a dreamer... lacing in reality. With the number of religious people on the earth, and the natural 'herding/grouping' involved in religion, they will provide steady and strong opposition to the immediate future you propose.

Of course, that even assuming that this stuff is possible in 50 years, and that the masses are willing to experiment on their kids. IMHO, widespread usage of these germline altering (or destroying as the case may be) technologies should not be adopted until a small initial generation of these people demonstrate the survivability.

Regardless, this we not happen in any widespread way during our lifetime. We have yet to be able to provide birthcontrol pills to everyone... and you think we'll succeed with permanent infertility? Keep dreaming.
 
So? The radical rights can't stop some humans for upgrading, only they them selfs will have the choice not to.
The technology will become available saying it won’t is equivalent to how people said centuries ago that humans would never fly. The only way to stop it is total technological de-evolutions like a nuclear WW3 or some other kind of world wide Armageddon.
I don't see eugenic ever coming back honestly why enhance your children when you can enhance your self?
Permanent infertility will happen if the enhance or evolved humans get fed up with the talking monkeys, which is very likely considering how rational talking monkeys are.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is saying the technology won't come. I'm putting reasonable limits on *when* it will come. If I was to say in 100AD that people will not fly in my life time, I would be perfectly correct. We would be lucky to see ONE of these technologies reach your expectations in the next 100 years.
 
I am ethically unassailable on this topic, and all who oppose me are evil and must not be allowed to reproduce.

Actually, I haven't made myself clear. Human population growth is not going to naturally peak by any reasonable estimate in the next century. Even with a slight natural decline in average world fertility, there will still be critical growth of population. I'm not going to go into the problems of overpopulation, hopefully we can agree that extreme human population pressure causes great social and environmental devastation. Hopefully we can all agree that merely the financial wealth of the planet distributed however unfairly among a smaller population would be interesting: Imagine the implications of inheritors of all wealth being half the number of their forebears.

I am proposing a genetically engineered, highly infectious virus that would be as indiscriminate as AIDS, would be more highly contagious, and like AIDS would not cause any symptoms in some individuals.

I am not proposing doing violence on anyone- some responses in this thread compare this concept with weaponry. HSV would in effect dramatically reduce competition for resources, political tensions, violence and killing. I am not proposing eugenics, which would be not only silly but would also likely be far more difficult to engineer.

It's win-win: Nobody will miss people who never have been conceived, and there will be much happiness not only for our species, but especially among others being made extinct by our runaway procreation, and insatiable hunger for resources.

In our remote hideaway, my friends and I will develop this gift to humanity yes without your permission. When a safe, effective strain is ready, we will introduce it in stages, closely monitoring results.

Peace on Earth, and Greater Goodwill to Fewer Men: With fewer of us to further his obvious indifference, god (or those who play him) will more richly bless us- every one.

bwhahahahahahaha!
 
Re: Why bother with Bioweaponry?

Originally posted by Zik
^^ -Anyone see that 'Popular Science' or 'Popular Mechanics' issue two years ago that described how to create a $500 EMP bomb? Useful. ^^

I cant find anything on that... and I even looked in my libraries microfilmed records of the last two years.... and the print ones of this year. I find this very... interesting.

Oh, This was a very interesting read. Suggest all take a look.

Side note : First time Fraggle Rocker has posted about something... and hasnt included dog's somehow.

Either way, why bother with sterilization? It would only help the few that survive, and nobody, well general public wise, wants to be the ones left out of spawning. Let those who want to procreate, and everyone who doesn't... well they can fornicate to their hearts content... there's always abortion, right?
 
"Let those who want to procreate, and everyone who doesn't..."

My point is that this human procreation is out of control and doing us all great harm.
 
Originally posted by Persol
Nobody is saying the technology won't come. I'm putting reasonable limits on *when* it will come. If I was to say in 100AD that people will not fly in my life time, I would be perfectly correct. We would be lucky to see ONE of these technologies reach your expectations in the next 100 years.

That's funny people in 1880 said heavy then air flight was possible put estimates between 1930-50. People that projected space travel in the 1930's said it would happen in the 21 century.

Tell me why you believe these technologies are unlikely within our lifetime? Try to take in to account that technology grows exponentially.
 
I know you don't want me to list all the early predictions, which are far more numerous and well known.

As for why I don't think cyborgs, biorobots and AI are in the near future... religious ethics and lack of technology. First, religious freak fight even the research of this type of stuff. Second, none of those three have anything NEAR what would be required for your vision of the near future. The big advancement in cyborgs and biorobotics have been material innovations. AI is still in the land of the insect, and not even close to 'uploading' of a human mind.

If you have some knowledge of a breakthrough, great... but saying that 'growth is exponential' is silly because we don't know what level of technology is actually needed for this stuff to happen.
 
Who?

:confused:

Nico: Yes I got disjointed there, can't sort it out myself, I think I was reacting to Fafnir's expression of laissez-baiser.
 
Back
Top