Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Saving the World

Deep down inside, everybody knows how to save the world. Most villains in popular fiction have it figured out, but the hero always stops them because the solution is too drastic. If you want to save the world, you have to kill most of the people.

Just imagine if half of the people suddenly ceased to exist. Half as much human excrement, half as many factories churning out products for consumers, half as much livestock farting holes in the ozone layer, and half as many cars on your commute to work. Everything would be notably improved for those who remain.

However, half isn't the target. Check out the Georgia Guidestones - "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." 500 million. There are almost 7.5 billion people on earth right now, this is suggesting that only 1 in 15 people will remain.

Let's assume that whatever person or group created the Georgia Guidestones also has the power to make this a reality. How does one get rid of 7 billion people? How are the survivors selected?

Perhaps the most humane option is to restrict reproduction because it doesn't require killing anybody. There are countless conspiracy theories about how this would be accomplished. Genetically modified food, riders in a vaccine, or water additives that chemically sterilize the population. Then, people who prove themselves competent could apply for a temporary sterilization antidote and have a child - perhaps two if they score well on extremely biased standardized tests. However, this is too slow and cumbersome to be the final answer.

War is another great way to reduce the population, and powerful people have used war to achieve their goals for as long as history has been recorded. However, even an inefficient invasion like Normandy in World War II still produced a baby boom when the surviving soldiers returned home. War is too unpredictable and messy; it will continue being used to slow growth until the solution is implemented, but it is not the solution.

The actual solution will be a global catastrophe. Perhaps a plague or chemical weapon. We will probably never learn the full truth behind it. When I say "we" I mean the survivors; 14:1 odds say that you and I will be dead.

Taking about odds is misleading. It won't be a random lottery. People will be deliberately selected and protected from the disaster. Imagine a group of self-proclaimed geniuses trying to engineer the perfect society. What composition do the 500 million survivors need? 100,000 computer programmers? 1 million farmers? 3 million custodians? Not exact numbers, but you get the idea.

It is easier to figure out who will not be given a ticket to the new world. The engineers of the future have access to everything. Medical records, police records, school records, employment history, credit card purchases, etc. Unemployed? Dead. Welfare? Dead. Poor health? Dead. Poorly educated? Dead. Criminal history? Dead. Drug addiction? Dead. People who are a burden rather than a boon will not be welcome.

If you pass that initial screening, you will live or die based on merit and need. You're one of the top 100,000 computer programmers in the world? Should be safe. One of the top million farmers? Good to go. Chairman of the One Direction fan club? Sorry. All of the data will be processed by a computer algorithm and the survivors will be chosen. Unfortunately, they're going to mess it up.

Mr. Privileged has a free pass. There won't be 500,000,000 survivors chosen. There will be 499,999,999 survivors and that guy. Except it isn't just one guy. There could be hundreds, thousands, or millions of free passes. "My daughter's boyfriend's dad is a computer programmer. Let's put him on the white-list. Oh, his wife too, she's a dear."

After a bunch of slots are reserved for nepotism and cronyism, you still have a problem. The remaining slots are filled by roles that a small number of people consider important. What if they are wrong? Ever play a role-playing game without a healer in the party? You lose. Who will these brilliant social architects exclude from the party? Artists? Eskimos? Protestants? Democrats? Tuvan Throat Singers? They'll include everything that is needed to keep the gears turning, but, through bias or ignorance, we will lose diversity and pieces of our culture.

That's the new world: A group of logical sociopaths, their friends, their families, and a bunch of computer-selected servants. No useless people like minority rights advocates, controversial filmmakers, or whistleblowers. Nepotism and cronyism are your most realistic shots at survival, so go make friends with the Illuminati, Elders of Zion, or Bilderberg Group if you want to live!


( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Erica Marceau
May. 31st, 2015 06:05 am (UTC)
That's why statist countries usually end up with a lot of people dead. When you divide people into two groups, the useful and the useless, it's easy to think that your country would be better off with all of the useless people dead.
Sep. 29th, 2015 03:39 pm (UTC)
Logically speaking, a country is better off with all of the useless people dead, but I don't believe anybody is qualified to determine which people are useless. People that seem useless could prove to be extremely useful if given the proper environment and opportunities.

Edited at 2016-08-22 01:19 pm (UTC)
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

January 2017
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel