What group would you genocide?, A crop shortage problem.

Alright, so you're supreme ruler of the world, and you've been partaking in the boozing and the women. You've kinda forgotten to get enough food grown for everyone though.

You'll only have enough food for 5.5 billion people over the next year, although you'll easily be able to get it to where it's needed. How do you decide who doesn't get any?

The elderly, their time has passed anyway. I'm sure they'd like to die to save the youngsters (not like it matters what they'd like).

WoW players. They already don't value their time, so they can play in heaven/hell or in between.

A good one cubs, but I wouldn't genocide them cause some of my best friends play WoW.
...
But then again...

i would just ask people to give up their own life so that others can survive, and if no1 comes up, i'll go ahead and slaughter peple at random

and then use their bodies to fertilize the ground, making food that ironically would not have been there did people not die due to a SHORTAGE of it

Hmm, Hellochar you remind me of one good way to increase food supplies in this time of crisis: Soylent Green.

Question of moral, once again. I would not feed the elderity, deadly ill guys, or the guys who are somehow doomed to die soon. If that is not enough, I would unstraightly 'kill' the minority/poors, and the people none misses.

Hmm, that's probably roughly what I'd do Light-Coke. Although I might take the chance to simply wipe out something like AIDS if I had enough power.

Immediately start rationing, if that doesn't fix...

First to go?

I'll have those who are willing to volunteer to go. Those who have contemplated suicide, or are in such pain/handicapped they want to end it. Mass euthanasia.

Second, criminals, particularly those already on death roll.

Third, those already dead. As in perma comatose, brain damage, living on machines and haven't become conscious for a year.

Fourth, elderly if it is unavoidable. Killing off people won't solve the root problem. Increasing agriculture production, technology, curbing waste, etc will.

........I'm going to get hated for this but.........please read all of my post

Parts of the Middle East and Africa. (not all)

Both parts of the world are either backwards and not willing to change or hateful and not willing to change

From a wide perspective, they can do the least to help this world so "cutting them off" would be the thing to do if you had to. Think about it, would you really want to keep people alive that are intent on continuing their ways of life that are counter productive to the entire world?

well that depends on what you consider 'counter-productive', doesn't it?

would you kill off all of the aboriginal populations of the world as well (native americans, bushmen in africa, etc)?

no

just those who refuse to change their appawling nature

canibalism, human sacrifice-ism, terrorism

pretty much everything the world agrees on being bad

You realize terrorism is not only in the middle east right?

i realize

and i ment to change my OP

can't find edit button though
stupid small edit button

k nvm, you know what I'm talking about now

I said Africa and the Middle East as examples. But I rather those groups be kicked off.

Kill 2.5M that can't be fed, and use their bodies to feed the other 2.5M. Awesome plan. Which 2.5M, I don't know. TELEPHONE SANITISERS.