Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Is the world worth saving?

  1. #31
    Cancerous autism in a can Eli Porter's Avatar
    Type
    xxxx
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by aiyanah View Post
    the world is never worth saving, it can save itself just as well.
    imagine someone saved the world from the asteroid back when dino's roamed? well shit pretty sure anyone wanting to touch dinosaurs today would not appreciate them had they not been wiped out.
    let the next thing in line on this planet have no burdens to work with.
    This is interesting. Hm...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptah View Post
    Sig-worthy....

  2. #32
    Member Pan_Sonic's Avatar
    Type
    XXXX
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    75
    If I could regulate the amount of destruction, that would be optimal. Whittle it down to 500m people and use them as a starter seed for a soft reboot of the species.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Senseye's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,518
    But why do you think a soft reboot of the species would turn out any differently? Unless you plan on a 'big brother' type foundation to oversee human development with a guiding hand.

    Otherwise, by the time those 500m re-populated to 7 billion again I suspect we'd have the same old story.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Spartan26's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,921
    Quote Originally Posted by Senseye View Post
    But why do you think a soft reboot of the species would turn out any differently? Unless you plan on a 'big brother' type foundation to oversee human development with a guiding hand.

    Otherwise, by the time those 500m re-populated to 7 billion again I suspect we'd have the same old story.
    How long to go from 500m to 7b? Buys us a few years to figure things out. Although, on a hypothetical on top of a hypothetical, would you really want to live in a world that has been wiped from 7 billion down to 500 million? That's an insane amount of death obviously. Sure, at some point there'd be a new normal but I couldn't imagine the grief, even if it wasn't my fam & friends directly lost.
    Last edited by Spartan26; 04-30-2020 at 10:38 PM. Reason: missed words

  5. #35
    Member Pan_Sonic's Avatar
    Type
    XXXX
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Senseye View Post
    But why do you think a soft reboot of the species would turn out any differently? Unless you plan on a 'big brother' type foundation to oversee human development with a guiding hand.

    Otherwise, by the time those 500m re-populated to 7 billion again I suspect we'd have the same old story.
    It'd probably turn out the same, but we'd at least get ~400 years before getting back to current population levels (assuming the historical growth rate remains roughly the same). That would alleviate some pressure on the environment and ideally give us time to plan knowing what we know now.

Similar Threads

  1. What is a person worth?
    By Buddha in forum The Pub
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 05-21-2015, 01:34 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-04-2014, 01:10 PM
  3. DAYLIGHT SAVING
    By MacGuffin in forum Rants, Raves & Hot Air
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 03-12-2014, 02:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •