Hahahaha i think you're all so naive.
Look at what you are proposing - you claim that the best way to preserve standards of living is to kill and destroy those of some.
As a by-product, you claim that it has a certain darwinian value in allowing the most effective members of our society to survive, and removing the useless.
Look at the irony in what you argue - so to prevent a stone age existence and painful hungry rioting apocalypse you argue a slaughtering for the standards of living. I argue instead that we develop and adapt and give ourselves time to live out the problem. Nuking the world is a mass extermination of EVERYTHING plan. Radiation creates this strange problem of killing everything. Including your proposed
Master Race.
Its called nuclear power, everyone. It allows you to artificially produce stuff. Like hydrogen, your beloved fertilizer. Like energy, which makes us tick. It should give us enough time to cut populations to revert using a huge workforce currently to make a lot of solar cells etc.
If you really want to cut populations, the solution is a one child policy. Not murder. Give time (you only need 1 generation to half the population), make contraception complusory for under 25's and use the massive pop we have now to create a super energy replacement for the future.
The world;s population has to shrink, but that doesnt mean we have to kill them
-Your touch with reality, telling you noones gonna nuke their own populations when the democracy's prolly gonna say 'Hell no!'
***EDIT****
and if this is an environmental debate, whose gonna move all those bodies, burning cities and residences that pollute the landscape huh? nukes arent good for the environment
