Because I'm a kind, thoughtful person, I'll refrain from the usual "kill all lusers" comments. However, I have something much more SubtlyEvilª to suggest... Seeing as choosing the right people to 'cull' will take some time in any case, it makes sense to implement a thorough plan that is designed to take place over, say, several decades.
The important thing is not to define anything that would remove people who could even potentially benefit the world as a whole, even in tiny ways. That's *hard*. But, for now, I'm going to assume that *most* people are basically: good; hard-working; moderately intelligent; considerate. They just need a little "encouragement" to bring out those qualities. I'm also going to assume that whoever implements this is omnipotent and immortal, and preferably without even a visible form.
The first cull will empty the maximum-security prisons quite nicely. Anyone who has proved themselves to be an active menace to society, gets the chop. Fortunately, that's quite a small minority of the overall population. It also takes out people like Bin Laden and his henchmen, which is quite convenient.
Secondly, make it clear that in the future, people who are an active menace to society will suffer the same fate. Although there will still be psychopaths who cannot ever be swayed by this type of reasoning, this should bring a great deal of people into line very quickly.
Thirdly, encourage the remainder of the population to show their value to society. This means trailer trash get off their arses - but "value to society" can take many forms, and may be latent - and the latent forms are generally the most powerful (eg. Einstein, Turing, et al). Caring, thinking, working, leading are all worthwhile activities, even if only on a very small scale. Thinking, in itself, need not be on a purely intellectual basis.
Fourth, after however many years to allow people to re-educate themselves, show their worth, identify the minority of the populace who have refused to contribute *anything* and show *no* promise of doing so in the future. This criterion is *not* on a profit basis - no person needs to show they are "contributing" more than they "cost". Make an example of this small minority by slowly culling off it's most hopeless members; the group *may* grow smaller faster than the death rate.
This method should affect less than 1% of the population, and would probably have a positive Darwin effect on the world, while not affecting it's industrial or growth capacity. It should also, indirectly, deal with lusers, if only because they must realise there is a bigger world than themselves out there.
And yes, I'm still in 'cynical' mode due to the lack of working LAN. The webcaches work, but only because I'm the only guy who can access them (nobody else has a caching nameserver in their room, or has worked out how to put an IP address in their browser).
Ugh, even the webcaches failed before I could post this. Thw whole network seems to be slowly coming back online, so I can finally post this, hours later. |
