The Grand Equalizer

[Ajna]

So today I was thinking about species and their stages of existance and that started me thinking about the human species. We've no doubt reached the stage of overpopulation and the stage after that as most people know is equilibrium, an event that basically kills a lot of one species or enough to bring them back into "harmony" with the enviroment it inhabits.

Okay, hold your horses right there.

The world population has been starting to level off. Global predictions for a flatlining at 18 billion people have now been revised and at current rates we'll see a levelling out at approximately 9 billion people. Birthrates are dropping all over the place and some countries' populations are in fact now going backward. This is in the absence of any war in these countries. Contrarty to popular belief, war does almost nothing to control population growth. The ONLY overriding factor in population control is birthrate, and these are decreasing globally.

The reason why we have starvation currently is not because of lack of food but for political reasons. There's plenty of food, globally, and if there's ever a shortfall in one area it's easy enough to get food brought in from elsewhere. Why doesn't this always happen? Politics. Often "starving" people are being starved, as was the case in Ethiopia, which is why Live Aid did almost nothing - all the donated food just sat in the ports and rotted because the government didn't want the starving millions to get it.

The planet CAN support well over 9 billion people with little difficulty, as long as they live in an ecologically sustainable manner. On the other hand, the planet can't support 9 billion people who all over-consume like rich Americans. So the real issue is not "what is the event going to be that changes things" but "how are WE going to change our OWN lives right now".

One word and a question mark: Source?

Though, I'll admit to hearing about the one with Ethiopia before. Though that was from a teacher of mine so left wing that they probably grow their own pot.

 

[Motti]

If the equalizer comes, it will be a slow thing brought on by ourselves, I'm thinking a worldwide famine of some kind to bring our population down.

 

[randomsix]

Humans are too violent and chaotic to be put into a single world government. Humanity will never unite on its own.

Not necessarily. It is possible for a small group of people to rule the entirety of humanity while still maintaining a global atmosphere of conflict. George Orwell's 1984 posits that a three government world could rise up, but if the three governments, as perceived by the populace were actually just one, then their war-like tendencies could be controlled. Admittedly, it would take quite the conspiracy for this to happen, but it is not impossible.

I will probably get bored one day and just start destroying the places I don't like. I would stay out of France, New Jersey and California if I were you.

Don't be hatin' on New Jersey. It's not ALL like what you see on the Real Housewives.

 

[BonsaiK]

So today I was thinking about species and their stages of existance and that started me thinking about the human species. We've no doubt reached the stage of overpopulation and the stage after that as most people know is equilibrium, an event that basically kills a lot of one species or enough to bring them back into "harmony" with the enviroment it inhabits.

Okay, hold your horses right there.

The world population has been starting to level off. Global predictions for a flatlining at 18 billion people have now been revised and at current rates we'll see a levelling out at approximately 9 billion people. Birthrates are dropping all over the place and some countries' populations are in fact now going backward. This is in the absence of any war in these countries. Contrarty to popular belief, war does almost nothing to control population growth. The ONLY overriding factor in population control is birthrate, and these are decreasing globally.

The reason why we have starvation currently is not because of lack of food but for political reasons. There's plenty of food, globally, and if there's ever a shortfall in one area it's easy enough to get food brought in from elsewhere. Why doesn't this always happen? Politics. Often "starving" people are being starved, as was the case in Ethiopia, which is why Live Aid did almost nothing - all the donated food just sat in the ports and rotted because the government didn't want the starving millions to get it.

The planet CAN support well over 9 billion people with little difficulty, as long as they live in an ecologically sustainable manner. On the other hand, the planet can't support 9 billion people who all over-consume like rich Americans. So the real issue is not "what is the event going to be that changes things" but "how are WE going to change our OWN lives right now".

One word and a question mark: Source?

Though, I'll admit to hearing about the one with Ethiopia before. Though that was from a teacher of mine so left wing that they probably grow their own pot.

Official United Nations world population estimates from now until 2300: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The information about Ethiopia I first heard from P.J.O'Rourke, a right-wing pundit who actually advocated nuking the place. I don't agree with his conclusions but the information he was basing them on was correct. You can read more about his opinions on it in his book "Give War A Chance".

 

[paragon1]

I'm going to be optimistic and say that the excess population forces space colonization into reality, and humanity populates the stars.

 

[A random person]

Nukes definitly. Plus side is that the Fallout series becomes real!

Thankfully I put plenty of points into intelligence and strength so I can carry stuff and quickly improve my skills, but one question: how much will low charisma and agility hurt me?

On topic, I find the whole nature causing some big event to equalize things idea questionable. Catastrophic events happen thanks to large amounts of time and probability, not because nature gets angry one day and wants to kill all humans. At least the OP made it sound like the latter.

But to answer the question, I'll be different and say the Yellowstone supervolcano thing. If that goes off, the explosion would be absolutely massive.

 

[Srkkl]

So today I was thinking about species and their stages of existance and that started me thinking about the human species. We've no doubt reached the stage of overpopulation and the stage after that as most people know is equilibrium, an event that basically kills a lot of one species or enough to bring them back into "harmony" with the enviroment it inhabits.

Okay, hold your horses right there.

The world population has been starting to level off. Global predictions for a flatlining at 18 billion people have now been revised and at current rates we'll see a levelling out at approximately 9 billion people. The UN now thinks maybe even that estimate's a little high. Birthrates are dropping all over the place and some countries' populations are in fact now going backward. This is in the absence of any war in these countries. Contrary to popular belief, war does almost nothing to control population growth. The ONLY overriding factor in population control is birthrate, and these are decreasing globally.

The reason why we have starvation currently is not because of lack of food but for political reasons. There's plenty of food, globally, and if there's ever a shortfall in one area it's easy enough to get food brought in from elsewhere. Why doesn't this always happen? Politics. Often "starving" people are being starved, as was the case in Ethiopia, which is why Live Aid did almost nothing - all the donated food just sat in the ports and rotted because the government didn't want the starving millions to get it.

The planet CAN support well over 9 billion people with little difficulty, as long as they live in an ecologically sustainable manner. On the other hand, the planet can't support 9 billion people who all over-consume like rich Americans. So the real issue is not "what is the event going to be that changes things" but "how are WE going to change our OWN lives right now".

I know that sounds a lot more boring than some super-virus or catfish with guns, sorry. Reality is often really boring and ordinary like that.

Well consider me enlightend. But my main point in this thread was cause discussion on somthing I've been thinking about (and could possibly happen) that I haven't seen on here before, not really telling people that they shouldn't worry about starving nations because nature or a higher power will deal with it for us.

 

[Ajna]

So today I was thinking about species and their stages of existance and that started me thinking about the human species. We've no doubt reached the stage of overpopulation and the stage after that as most people know is equilibrium, an event that basically kills a lot of one species or enough to bring them back into "harmony" with the enviroment it inhabits.

Okay, hold your horses right there.

The world population has been starting to level off. Global predictions for a flatlining at 18 billion people have now been revised and at current rates we'll see a levelling out at approximately 9 billion people. Birthrates are dropping all over the place and some countries' populations are in fact now going backward. This is in the absence of any war in these countries. Contrarty to popular belief, war does almost nothing to control population growth. The ONLY overriding factor in population control is birthrate, and these are decreasing globally.

The reason why we have starvation currently is not because of lack of food but for political reasons. There's plenty of food, globally, and if there's ever a shortfall in one area it's easy enough to get food brought in from elsewhere. Why doesn't this always happen? Politics. Often "starving" people are being starved, as was the case in Ethiopia, which is why Live Aid did almost nothing - all the donated food just sat in the ports and rotted because the government didn't want the starving millions to get it.

The planet CAN support well over 9 billion people with little difficulty, as long as they live in an ecologically sustainable manner. On the other hand, the planet can't support 9 billion people who all over-consume like rich Americans. So the real issue is not "what is the event going to be that changes things" but "how are WE going to change our OWN lives right now".

One word and a question mark: Source?

Though, I'll admit to hearing about the one with Ethiopia before. Though that was from a teacher of mine so left wing that they probably grow their own pot.

Official United Nations world population estimates from now until 2300: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The information about Ethiopia I first heard from P.J.O'Rourke, a right-wing pundit who actually advocated nuking the place. I don't agree with his conclusions but the information he was basing them on was correct. You can read more about his opinions on it in his book "Give War A Chance".

Are you aware that with that post, you have officially won the right to "King of the Escapist, and therefore the Internet", for the next 24 hours?

I now actually am of a different opinon than I was a few minutes prior to this post. That takes a severe amount of skill, good friend. Touche.

 

[Souplex]

I will probably get bored one day and just start destroying the places I don't like. I would stay out of France, New Jersey and California if I were you.

Don't be hatin' on New Jersey. It's not ALL like what you see on the Real Housewives.

The parts I have been to are much worse.

 

[Srkkl]

I will probably get bored one day and just start destroying the places I don't like. I would stay out of France, New Jersey and California if I were you.

Oh noes I can't go to those wonderful places, whatever will I do?

/sarcasm

Haha have fun blowing those places up, although I did have fun in Jersey once, so it is possible, although it was Ozzfest and who wouldn't have fun at Ozzfest.

 

[ShadowKatt]

Humans are too violent and chaotic to be put into a single world government. Humanity will never unite on its own.

Two points: European Union, North American Union. One is coming, the other is already here.

 

[Steel Ronin]

Maybe it will be like WW3 but between every country with nukes hope Bulgaria doesen't get involved again.What can you do this year like 70 percent of the population who can vote didn't it was a party of idiots that won and games are expencive as fuck who would pay 200 bucks for GTA IV.O and I hope most countries don't use nukes if there is going to be a WW3.But as we all know teh USA is going to be called Walmartia by the time anyone decides that they had enough of the French and Obamas lies.

 

[BonsaiK]

So today I was thinking about species and their stages of existance and that started me thinking about the human species. We've no doubt reached the stage of overpopulation and the stage after that as most people know is equilibrium, an event that basically kills a lot of one species or enough to bring them back into "harmony" with the enviroment it inhabits.

Okay, hold your horses right there.

The world population has been starting to level off. Global predictions for a flatlining at 18 billion people have now been revised and at current rates we'll see a levelling out at approximately 9 billion people. Birthrates are dropping all over the place and some countries' populations are in fact now going backward. This is in the absence of any war in these countries. Contrarty to popular belief, war does almost nothing to control population growth. The ONLY overriding factor in population control is birthrate, and these are decreasing globally.

The reason why we have starvation currently is not because of lack of food but for political reasons. There's plenty of food, globally, and if there's ever a shortfall in one area it's easy enough to get food brought in from elsewhere. Why doesn't this always happen? Politics. Often "starving" people are being starved, as was the case in Ethiopia, which is why Live Aid did almost nothing - all the donated food just sat in the ports and rotted because the government didn't want the starving millions to get it.

The planet CAN support well over 9 billion people with little difficulty, as long as they live in an ecologically sustainable manner. On the other hand, the planet can't support 9 billion people who all over-consume like rich Americans. So the real issue is not "what is the event going to be that changes things" but "how are WE going to change our OWN lives right now".

One word and a question mark: Source?

Though, I'll admit to hearing about the one with Ethiopia before. Though that was from a teacher of mine so left wing that they probably grow their own pot.

Official United Nations world population estimates from now until 2300: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The information about Ethiopia I first heard from P.J.O'Rourke, a right-wing pundit who actually advocated nuking the place. I don't agree with his conclusions but the information he was basing them on was correct. You can read more about his opinions on it in his book "Give War A Chance".

Are you aware that with that post, you have officially won the right to "King of the Escapist, and therefore the Internet", for the next 24 hours?

I now actually am of a different opinon than I was a few minutes prior to this post. That takes a severe amount of skill, good friend. Touche.

I am honoured, lest you are mistaken - I am but a humble servant of thee Internets!

Heading into more interesting territory (and slightly more relevant to the OP), if you look at "apocalypse culture" across different countries, the results vary greatly depending on where you look. For instance, in the United States and most other western countries, the nuclear bomb/alien invasion/meteor/giant slug with poison death rays/volcano eruption/[insert apocalyptic event here] is seen as "game over", a blow from which society will never recover, or will be deeply, irrevocably transformed, always for the worse (i.e Fallout). On the other hand, if you look at Japanese apocalypse culture, they usually envisage a catastrophe, and then a rebuilding into a brighter future with better technology and a happier existence (think about all the Anime films with a "New Tokyo" and an "Old (pre-apocalypse) Tokyo"). This is probably because Japan did actually survive not one but TWO nukes, and have seen the rebuilding process first hand, so it's easier for them to imagine survival after the bomb. Whereas most other western countries haven't witnessed a destruction of that magnitude, so the obstacle seems insurmountable.

The point being this: most apocalyptic events actually aren't. The human race is surprisingly adaptable, and it's this adaptability plus a will to survive that will see us through. Even if a bunch of nukes go off in the near future (highly unlikely), the survivors will just pick up the pieces, adapt to the new situation, and rebuild. It would take the Earth plowing into the Moon or something of similar magnitude to remove us from the planet, and even then we'd probably see it coming and develop some kind of contingency plan for the survival of the species.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

Personally, i would agree with Srkkl, it would end with a natural disaster, if we weren't all run by retard babies. As it is we are going to kill ourselves off somehow. It might be a nuclear holocaust, but methinks we'll find a way to kill ourselves off for the most part before the idea gets through the magical retard "intelligent thought proof" brain slime even thinks to push the button.

 

[Ajna]

So today I was thinking about species and their stages of existance and that started me thinking about the human species. We've no doubt reached the stage of overpopulation and the stage after that as most people know is equilibrium, an event that basically kills a lot of one species or enough to bring them back into "harmony" with the enviroment it inhabits.

Okay, hold your horses right there.

The world population has been starting to level off. Global predictions for a flatlining at 18 billion people have now been revised and at current rates we'll see a levelling out at approximately 9 billion people. Birthrates are dropping all over the place and some countries' populations are in fact now going backward. This is in the absence of any war in these countries. Contrarty to popular belief, war does almost nothing to control population growth. The ONLY overriding factor in population control is birthrate, and these are decreasing globally.

The reason why we have starvation currently is not because of lack of food but for political reasons. There's plenty of food, globally, and if there's ever a shortfall in one area it's easy enough to get food brought in from elsewhere. Why doesn't this always happen? Politics. Often "starving" people are being starved, as was the case in Ethiopia, which is why Live Aid did almost nothing - all the donated food just sat in the ports and rotted because the government didn't want the starving millions to get it.

The planet CAN support well over 9 billion people with little difficulty, as long as they live in an ecologically sustainable manner. On the other hand, the planet can't support 9 billion people who all over-consume like rich Americans. So the real issue is not "what is the event going to be that changes things" but "how are WE going to change our OWN lives right now".

One word and a question mark: Source?

Though, I'll admit to hearing about the one with Ethiopia before. Though that was from a teacher of mine so left wing that they probably grow their own pot.

Official United Nations world population estimates from now until 2300: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

The information about Ethiopia I first heard from P.J.O'Rourke, a right-wing pundit who actually advocated nuking the place. I don't agree with his conclusions but the information he was basing them on was correct. You can read more about his opinions on it in his book "Give War A Chance".

Are you aware that with that post, you have officially won the right to "King of the Escapist, and therefore the Internet", for the next 24 hours?

I now actually am of a different opinon than I was a few minutes prior to this post. That takes a severe amount of skill, good friend. Touche.

I am honoured, lest you are mistaken - I am but a humble servant of thee Internets!

Heading into more interesting territory (and slightly more relevant to the OP), if you look at "apocalypse culture" across different countries, the results vary greatly depending on where you look. For instance, in the United States and most other western countries, the nuclear bomb/alien invasion/meteor/giant slug with poison death rays/volcano eruption/[insert apocalyptic event here] is seen as "game over", a blow from which society will never recover, or will be deeply, irrevocably transformed, always for the worse (i.e Fallout). On the other hand, if you look at Japanese apocalypse culture, they usually envisage a catastrophe, and then a rebuilding into a brighter future with better technology and a happier existence (think about all the Anime films with a "New Tokyo" and an "Old (pre-apocalypse) Tokyo"). This is probably because Japan did actually survive not one but TWO nukes, and have seen the rebuilding process first hand, so it's easier for them to imagine survival after the bomb. Whereas most other western countries haven't witnessed a destruction of that magnitude, so the obstacle seems insurmountable.

The point being this: most apocalyptic events actually aren't. The human race is surprisingly adaptable, and it's this adaptability plus a will to survive that will see us through. Even if a bunch of nukes go off in the near future (highly unlikely), the survivors will just pick up the pieces, adapt to the new situation, and rebuild. It would take the Earth plowing into the Moon or something of similar magnitude to remove us from the planet, and even then we'd probably see it coming and develop some kind of contingency plan for the survival of the species.

You read the article on Cracked about how the human population was once reduced to just 10,000 people, too. Didn't you?

 

[BonsaiK]

You read the article on Cracked about how the human population was once reduced to just 10,000 people, too. Didn't you?

Er no. I've never read Cracked. I understand it's like a cheaper, unfunnier version of MAD Magazine which is why I've never really bothered with it.

 

[Ajna]

You read the article on Cracked about how the human population was once reduced to just 10,000 people, too. Didn't you?

Er no. I've never read Cracked. I understand it's like a cheaper, unfunnier version of MAD Magazine which is why I've never really bothered with it.

I want my internet-king title back. MAD magazine is overpriced kindling. Cracked.com is a treasure trove of insightful humor.

 

[JC175]

You read the article on Cracked about how the human population was once reduced to just 10,000 people, too. Didn't you?

Er no. I've never read Cracked. I understand it's like a cheaper, unfunnier version of MAD Magazine which is why I've never really bothered with it.

It used to be. Now its a web-based humour site which is really quite good. I'd check it out if I were you.

 

[Nemorov]

I think it'll probably be some sort of super-strain disease...

I mean we're already creating one with our obsessive sanitizing... sure 99.9%, what about that .1% that becomes immune?

Not to mention, as the population grows, we will be crammed up with people who carry the disease, and will contract it easier. Hell, that happens nowadays.

 

[Srkkl]

I think it'll probably be some sort of super-strain disease...

I mean we're already creating one with our obsessive sanitizing... sure 99.9%, what about that .1% that becomes immune?

Not to mention, as the population grows, we will be crammed up with people who carry the disease, and will contract it easier. Hell, that happens nowadays.

And the movie Doomsday will become reality, awesome.