If you had to choose which one of these countries to wipe off the map in order to better the rest of the world, which would you?

Base your choice on the following:
-World economic contribution
-Product consumption
-Resource consumption
-Pollution
-Any others you deem necessary, just explain why

And no, this isn't a project for class or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

11/28/2005 8:25:04 PM

OMFG you forgot Poland.

11/28/2005 8:42:22 PM

[insert gargs/India joke here]

11/28/2005 8:43:34 PM

Quote :

"-World economic contribution -Product consumption -Resource consumption -Pollution"

So are you trying to make everyone answer the U.S.?

11/28/2005 8:43:47 PM

GTFO COMMIE BASTARDS!

11/28/2005 8:47:12 PM

india

11/28/2005 9:09:03 PM

whichever one i convince the big girl, ggmon, and retard4life to visit together

11/28/2005 9:10:13 PM

China

Overall, they are horrible polluters, break all trade laws to undercut competition, the government is more corrupt than the US, they don't follow UN regulations especially about working conditions, pay, etc.

Of course China also provides a shitload of cheap clothes, electronics, parts etc. They are the dollar store of the consumer industry and like it or not, we depend on them.

11/28/2005 9:16:19 PM

Quote :

"OMFG you forgot Poland."

11/28/2005 9:18:06 PM

this is a stupid fucking question

unless you're iran, any talk of wiping anything off the map is refuckingtarded

11/28/2005 9:20:06 PM

whichever one i convince the big girl, ggmon, and retard4life to visit together

11/28/2005 9:29:46 PM

^^

yep, wiping any one of them away would not better the world

11/28/2005 9:55:36 PM

WATCH OUT WOODHEAD

MR 4LIFE WILL COME IN HERE AND CALL YOU A FUNNY NAME

11/28/2005 9:58:32 PM

Quote :

"this is a stupid fucking question unless you're iran, any talk of wiping anything off the map is refuckingtarded"

India has a population of over 1 billion, which is around a sixth of the world population. Many people say the world is too overcrowded. Don't you think it might solve a few resource and consumption problems if the world population was lowered to say... 5 billion?

11/28/2005 10:08:25 PM

Quote :

" India has a population of over 1 billion, which is around a sixth of the world population. Many people say the world is too overcrowded. Don't you think it might solve a few resource and consumption problems if the world population was lowered to say... 5 billion?"

Malthus, ya'll. If we have too many people on Earth, we'll start to die off until our resources can once again support us. No reason to go around wiping whole countries off the earth.

11/28/2005 10:18:56 PM

So we must all suffer? Sounds like the philosophy begind socialism to me. The eqaul suffering of all instead the suffering of some and the prospering of the rest. I'd much rather India be wiped off the map instead of the rest of the world suffering for their stupidity.

11/28/2005 10:45:26 PM

gotta go with india. They are birthing at a greater rate than china, but china is kicking their ass, economically. They pollute pretty badly, too.

11/28/2005 10:51:10 PM

^^ The more people we have, the more people we have working on the problem.

Yes, India has largely rendered its people less useful in respect to technological development, but their existance is definitely encouraging others.

11/28/2005 11:38:49 PM

and without india

how would millions of suburbanites ever spend 3 hours fixing a dvd-rom drive issue?

11/29/2005 12:00:38 AM

Quote :

"The more people we have, the more people we have working on the problem."

The more people we have, the more mouths to feed. That means more land to grow crops/graze animals, more land for waste, more coal/oil/etc. burned for energy, more water to fuel all of this, more of everything. With more people comes more problems not less. The problem is that people keep popping out kids like there is no tomorrow. Here in the US, that is in part because the government give tax breaks/credits to those who have children, thus encouraging them to have MORE children. We have all these kids in orphanages and people still keep popping out more; alot of which has to do with personal responsibility. Alot of these kids will go to orphanages and the cycle will repeat itself as they donot know any better. More money will be needed to take care of these unwanted children, whether they be in orphanges/foster homes or on welfare. That means higher taxes for the rest of us, and more socialist government bureaucracies. WE NEED LESS PEOPLE, NOT MORE.

11/29/2005 12:08:14 AM

^ You have no concept of scale.

If the entire US population is suddenly reduced by 10%, there will be 10% fewer orphans, but also 10% fewer tax payers to cover them. As such, the tax burden is the same.

Quote :

"That means more land to grow crops/graze animals, more land for waste, more coal/oil/etc. burned for energy, more water to fuel all of this, more of everything."

And, of course, more people to do all the work required. Case in point, we have no way of knowing if having fewer people would result in a higher standard of living.

Just looking at the United States, if we always had half the population we did would we still have all the technology we do? Would Thomas Edison have been one of the people missing from history? What about Edwin Drake, who demonstrated drilling for oil was possible? From an instantanious perspective, is American industry able to achieve a higher economy of scale because the market is larger? Is American industry more competitive because the larger market allows for more competitors?

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/29/2005 9:38:24 AM

Africa.

Obviously.

11/29/2005 3:53:11 PM

NOT India

you even dream about aiming nukes at the world's largest democracy, you better wake up and apologise

11/29/2005 5:21:27 PM

^ Hmm, why? What makes India special?

It may be the most populous democracy, but up till a decade or so ago its contribution to mankind was less than positive.

11/29/2005 5:27:46 PM

your historical timeline is mighty short

11/29/2005 5:36:11 PM

This is rediculous. The world would be fucked up if any of these countries were wiped off the map. Our economies are too interdependent. Remember that international trade brings mutual net gains. Of course there are winners and losers though.

China's policy of weakening its currency has direct effects on our monetary policy for example. They buy up dollars to keep their currency weak, thus increasing the demand for dollars and keeping interest rates down.

Japan is obviously a huge trading partner. They make all sorts of high quality goods that we consume, allowing us to specialize in things like pharmaceuticals.

India is a developing market with a significant number of educated workers.

11/29/2005 6:26:28 PM

are we actually that dependent on india? everything they can do the chinks can do

11/29/2005 6:37:29 PM

doh!

[Edited on November 29, 2005 at 11:52 PM. Reason : ah shoot]

11/29/2005 11:50:07 PM

India is one of the worst for sex slavory aren't they?

11/29/2005 11:51:41 PM

" Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble?"

11/30/2005 12:33:14 AM

11/30/2005 12:58:36 AM