Which My GNR Forum Member Would Make the Best World Leader?

[Len Cnut]

What, you mean i don't rule the world as things stand?

[Satanisk_Slakt]

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

Yeah, or I have a better suggestion. We could develop a new, better and more effective AIDS that would actually kill everyone in the disposable parts of the world.

[Len Cnut]

Why go to all that trouble just for Sweden, nobody cares that they exist anyway

[Satanisk_Slakt]

What parts of the world that would be disposable isn't really up for me to decide. I'd say Sweden is one of the countries with most inventions, research and technology per capita in the world however and considering how much area we have and how small our population is I wouldn't say we're overpopulated either. It was just an idea.

[magisme]

The other people are always disposable.

[SoulMonster]

Decimating any particular ethnicities is horrible. Much better to just put a cap on reproduction.

[netcat]

but how do you put a cap on religions that are opposed to birth control?

[magisme]

but how do you put a cap on religions that are opposed to birth control?

You realize you just turned this into another religion thread.

Ban please.

[netcat]

but how do you put a cap on religions that are opposed to birth control?

You realize you just turned this into another religion thread.

Ban please.

i just want to know how our humanist word leader will deal with the problem without mass executions

[SoulMonster]

but how do you put a cap on religions that are opposed to birth control?

I guess that depends on what tools I would have available to execute policies as World Leader. Hopefully I would have been votes in based on my platform and hence there would be a majority support for my policies, even among religions who today are against birth control in any way. If not, I guess I would have to employ the same methods used today to force people into following the laws. Carrots and whips.

[magisme]

but how do you put a cap on religions that are opposed to birth control?

You realize you just turned this into another religion thread.

Ban please.

i just want to know how our humanist word leader will deal with the problem without mass executions

You're a dick. You know damn well he can't do it without mass executions and/or reeducation camps.

To be fair, though, ruling the world is nasty business and you'd have to be a world class piece of shit or a world class idiot to think you could do it without significant abuses.

[netcat]

Carrots and whips.

how would this tactics work with radical islamists for example?

[SoulMonster]

In this extremely hypothetical scenario I like to think I have been voted in because people agree with my policies, and then this wouldn't necesarrily be a source of conflict. But sure, in the case that there is a large minority who will not accept a cap on reproduction then it depends on how I can either make them understand the necessity of making this sacrifice for the better of our descendants or simply force them into following the laws. Economic penalties, perhaps? Although that would mean rich people vould "buy themselves" into having as many kids as they want, which is socially unjustifiable. Sterilization after second child born seems like a recipe for revolt. It's a tough one, but again, in this purely hypothetical scenario people might agree with the necessity of reducing the amount of people on earth and this wouldn't be a problem, and if not, I would definitely and primarily do my utmost to create support for any reproduction cap. I like to think that things have to be pretty fucked up before I'd be voted in, anyways, so it might just be feasible

The funny thing is of course that humanity might face this problem some time in the future; we can't just continue to increase in numbers for ever. Some day, some time, some change must take place, and either we die off as a result of fucking things up majorly (ecosystems breaking down completely, climate change out of control, mass diseases caused by population densities, etc), or we have to deliberately control our population ourselves based on a rational understanding of what is happening.

Carrots and whips.

how would this tactics work with radical islamists for example?

The same way you get radical islamists to follow any other law in the country where they live. You use the mechanics of your justice system.

[netcat]

The same way you get radical islamists to follow any other law in the country where they live.

so mass executions it is

[SoulMonster]

The same way you get radical islamists to follow any other law in the country where they live.

so mass executions it is

I don't think radical islmaists would necesarrily be more opposed to a cap on reproduction than many other groups of people. The penalty of disobeying a law must be balanced with the necessity of it. Mass executions would of course never be acceptable .

[netcat]

Mass executions would of course never be acceptable .

bearing in mind that our goal is to stop overpopulation, let's not jump to such a hasty conclusion

You're a dick.

i used to be a reporter, that's kind of professional deformation

Edited December 8, 2014 by netcat

[SoulMonster]

The goal is to stop overpopulation, but not through mass murder .

The absolute worst case scenario, when humanity went towards catastrophe due to overpopulation and it wasn't possible to alter this through normal judicial legislation and laws, nor reasoning, would probably be enforced sterilization after second child born. But let's hope we never come to that, with or without me as a leader .

You lost your form? What are you now, an oozing blob devoid of any structural integrity?

[netcat]

"

You lost your form? What are you now, an oozing blob devoid of any structural integrity?

when i talk to a "politician", my first instinct is to ask him a tricky question that has no good answer. that's what i call a professional deformation. mags calls it being a dick

Edited December 8, 2014 by netcat

[MB.]

The goal is to stop overpopulation, but not through mass murder .

The absolute worst case scenario, when humanity went towards catastrophe due to overpopulation and it wasn't possible to alter this through normal judicial legislation and laws, nor reasoning, would probably be enforced sterilization after second child born. But let's hope we never come to that, with or without me as a leader .

You know what would be a big problem, all these little baby girls, dumped in garbage bins etc. How are you planning to solve that problem?

Enforced sterilization would probably help preventing that a little. But don't think, you would make yourself very liked.

[SoulMonster]

"

You lost your form? What are you now, an oozing blob devoid of any structural integrity?

when i talk to a "politician", my first instinct is to ask him a tricky question that has no good answer. that's what i call a professional deformation. mags calls it being a dick

Defamation?

Nevertheless, enforcing one unpopular law is no more tricky than enforcing another unpopular law. The good answers to how this is achieved is to apply the exact same toolbox of legislative and regulative mechanics. The good thing is that in this case, a cap on reproduction would hopefully NOT be an unpopular law, because I wouldn't be World Leader if people didn't want my politics.

[SoulMonster]

The goal is to stop overpopulation, but not through mass murder .

The absolute worst case scenario, when humanity went towards catastrophe due to overpopulation and it wasn't possible to alter this through normal judicial legislation and laws, nor reasoning, would probably be enforced sterilization after second child born. But let's hope we never come to that, with or without me as a leader .

You know what would be a big problem, all these little baby girls, dumped in garbage bins etc. How are you planning to solve that problem?

Enforced sterilization would probably help preventing that a little. But don't think, you would make yourself very liked.

I am not so sure that would be such a big problem. Dumping a girl would not allow you to have a third child. It is a two-child maximum, meaning that if you get a girl, yet want a boy, or vice versa, disposing of your unwanted baby would make no difference in regards to your fixed quota. It's not like you could go, "I lost my two baby girls so now I want to have a go at a third child". It shouldn't work that way. The problem could be, though, that people would abort babies of unwanted sex, and even if this was prohibited women would perhaps do it outside of the health system with all the negatives that come from illegal abortions. I can think of no satisfying solution to this except try to suppress such a practise, if it ever where to happen (remember, what took place in China may not be transferabel to everywhere else), by balancing the penalties of aborting fetuses after the legal period with the damage caused by it yet keeping in mind the benefits of reducing the over population.

Enforced sterilization is only for people who have had their second child AND when the two-child maximum rule was vastly unpopular and not able to be enforced through normal means. A last resort, really. As for preventing abortion of babies of unwanted sex, I doubt sterilization would help. Sterilization is only to happen after the second child has been born, if ever, and abortion would typically happen with pregnancies of the first two so as to have another chance to get a baby of the desired gender.

But again, IF I were to become World Leader that would hopefully be due to my policies being popular, because people agreed that over population is something that needs to be battled NOW, and then I don't think people would object so drastically to the implementation of the very laws of which they approve, at least not to the extent that abortion of babies would be a big problem (again, in China the reproduction cap was massively unpopular among groups of people).

Lastly, if I couldn't get people to rally around my policies and I were faced with people not adhering to the two-child maximum law or tried to adjust normal sex ratios by doing illegal abortions, then I would just have to ask myself how the hell I got the position in the first place and abdicate. A democratically chosen leader is there to execute the will of the people, not to force his own will unto them, nor is that really achieveable.

[Ace Nova]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

[SoulMonster]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

[Ace Nova]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

[SoulMonster]

I haven't read the thread and take it for granted my name has come up numerous times. Here's why:

- Almost every problem we are facing (climate change, warfare, famine, conflict over resources, pollution, etc) have would be eradicated or reduced if there were less humans on this planet. Hence I would make it illegal to have more then 2 kids (per couple). The actual growth rate would then be less than 2 and the population on Earth would gradually go down. We should at least reduce it to max 1 billion.

- This would save much resources that are currently being spent to combat the problems mentioned above, and these resources should be put into science and welfare. The aim of widespread welfare should be that every child born should have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. The only discerning factor should be the genetic makeup we are born with. True equality, for everyone.

We'll start with this.

So instead of educating the populace, so they understand that reproducing in mass quantities could potentially be detrimental, and giving them the free will to decide whether they choose to do so or not.....you would rather go the Mao Zedong route?

No, read the rest of my posts in this thread.

As in this gem?:

"Why not? China was able to implement their population control policies in poor, rural areas with relative success, why shouldn't a world leader be able to do the same on a global scale."

So the fact that China was able to manipulate and control their poor, makes it ok for you to try it on a global scale?

WTF is wrong with you?

I still don't think you have read all I have written. The sentence above was in the context of arguing whether such a drastic measure would be achievable not whether it was condonable.

If you actually DO read the rests of my posts you will see that in this hypothetical scenario my ideal premise is that I am elected based on my policies and hence people would willingly accept a two-child maximum. In other words, such a law would be welcomed and any parallels to China is flawed (because there it was a law imposed on a largely opposing population). In the case there is a large minority that are opposed, which is not implausible, and the alternative is mass extinction due to the consequences of an ever-spiralling over-population, then normal legislative measures (whips and carrots) in addition to informing an ignorant population on why it is imperative to realize this objective, would be implemented to stimulate people into following the policy.