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

But then a plague will become epidemic due to a dirty telephone, killing off the rest of the population

Euthanasia is a good place to start.

Empty the prisons. Empty hospitals of those who are on lifesupport. Empty the old folks homes.

Then I agree with ForcesofWar. I could care less about every country in Africa barring South Africa and Egypt.

1. Everybody but me on this forum

Why does it have to be genocide? And anyway, killing off the old/sick isn't technically genocide, nor is killing off the entire population of the Middle East or Africa, as neither area has a genetically or racially homogenous population. I'd do it at random. Maybe I'd decimate the population (in the literal meaning of the word decimate) or something similar. What kind of fucktard assumes that genocide is the immediate solution to this problem? Why pick on any one group ffs. It just shows up your underlying bigotry and idiocy.

I know this is old, old, OLD, but damn, Forcesofwar, you are fucking stupid. Go out and learn something about the areas you are so willing to wipe out, stop relying on the projected mass media image that's stuffed down your throat. Cannibalism? Jesus. I bet you couldn't even name one group who partake in cannibalism (hint: probably NOT in Africa, fucktard.) Who gives a shit anyway? If there isn't enough food then let people eat people. They'll all succumb to kuru and die in the long run. As for terrorism, christ mate, you'd have to kill nearly every country if you wanted to wipe out people who use terror to get their own way. "Terrorists" are not some magical group of people who only live in hot sandy countries where you'll never go, they're ordinary fucking people. No one country/group/society is more disposed to terrorism than any other, in the long run.

Goddamn. The really depressing thing is that there are people in positions of power who think like this jerk.

While that may be true in theory, it is not true in practice. I'm not saying the people are to blame, I'm saying the group/society is.

How about them unachievers that don't have jobs, didn't go to college and they're poor? Yes this might not be "humane", but it's logical. They aren't gonna help humanity as much as regular people. While writing this, I noticed some attributes of mine that coincide with the above btw (don't have a job, haven't gone to college and honestly).

Another example would be setting 3 major countries like Russia, America and China to slaughter, thus losing a good chunk of their armies and economy. It could backfire though, if anyone of them would win without much casualties, they'd become an unstoppable force. I wouldn't be afraid much if this will happen, America probably wouldn't like to come to serbia anyway, Russians and Serbia are "spiritual brothers", so in the worst case scenario we'd either take us last or integrate us into the new CCCP.

Honestly though, I'm not into genocides much at all. Still, determinism means that everything is a part of a chain reaction, so even when genocides happen, the they're supposed to, unless of course, if someone (or some thousand...) is predestined to stop it.

While that may be true in theory, it is not true in practice. I'm not saying the people are to blame, I'm saying the group/society is.

What I meant by "in the long run" is: it's circumstance, not geographical location or even necessarily culture that gives rise to terrorism. Removing the current countries with terrorist problems is pretty damn arbitrary because most societies have experienced terrorism at one point or another. The Luddites of the Industrial Revolution springs to mind, as well as The Gunpowder plot, and that's just in England. The IRA, the basque movements in Spain, the Oklahoma bombings, the ALF, these are just a few examples of terrorist groups in recent years, operating over a wide geographical location.

Terrorism is an ancient, ancient tactic, employed by small groups against large societies which they feel owe them/are evil/whatever. There are certain groups which have a greater risk of giving rise to terrorist activities because of their hard-line dogma *cough religion, the hard line animal nutters, nationalist movements cough* but these are only sometimes connected with race and nationality. Wiping out the Middle East, for instance, would do nothing about the millions of other fundamentalist Muslims in other parts of the world (the Far East, The Near East, hell, a lot of Asia, not to mention in Europe and the Americas) who have already embraced the violent side of the doctrine and would be only to happy to have their persecution complex thoroughly justified.

And that's just Islamic terrorism. What about all the rest? I'm sorry, but if you're going to advocate a particular genocide, your reasoning must at least be logical, humourous or insane enough to ensue no one will ever bother to ask you about it. "Because there be terrerists thar!" is a bollocks reason, and not entirely true besides. Hence why I'd go the arbitrary, harsh but fair route. It's dicatorial, monstrous and cruel but hey, at least everyone gets the same deal. That's equality in action, right there.


[Edit:] I've just realised the obvious answer to this question is China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, the United States, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Japan, Mexico, The Philippines, Vietnam, Germany and Egypt. That gets rid of the highest populations in the world, and should bring the numbers down to manageable size (someone do the maths, I haven't.) Plus, all that spare land in nice, big, arable countries can then be turned over to food production wherever arable, ensuring no future deficits.

It doesn't have to be genocide per se. Just in terms of scale, I don't know a similar term that would apply.

Maybe Megacide. But TBF, that just sounds kinda awesome.
And I didn't want this to sound awesome.

Also:

It's fun seeing other people's bigotries.



And I'll have to send FoW an invite to defend himself... alright, I just want more activity here



Anyway, I note I never answered this question myself. My current opinion is something that isn't actually genocide per se, but rather a form of social restructuring.

I increase taxes, and give people the option to join a lottery by taking up to, say, the equivalent of 1 million quid out of a pot, with everyone getting at least 1 pound, and then killing people with a probability proportional to the amount they took.


If that's not feasible; I give everyone with a net worth in the bottom 50% of the population an equal share of the food, and let the rich buggers (which would, I suppose, include people like me) work out how much they're willing to pay. Oh, and death penalty for all crimes, of course, though the list of crimes will be parred down a bit for that.