Scientists: ‘Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?’

Scientists say at least 2 billion dead bodies will be burned and converted into fossil fuels or carbon batteries

edited by O Society May 8, 2020

WASHINGTON—Saying there’s no way around it at this point, a coalition of scientists announced Friday approximately one-third of the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the planet’s resources—and that humankind needs to figure out immediately how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its species.

Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of global government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people simply have to start dying.

And soon, the scientists confirmed.


The Public’s Trust in Scientists Rises, Pew Poll Shows

“I’m just going to level with you—the earth’s carrying capacity is no longer be able to keep up with population growth, and civilization will end unless large swaths of human beings are removed, so the question now is: How do we want to do this?” Cambridge University ecologist Dr. Edwin Peters said.

“Do we want to give everyone a number and implement a death by lottery system? Incinerate the nation’s children or elderly? Kill off an entire race of people? Give everyone a shotgun and let them sort it out for themselves? Suggestions?”


“Completely up to you,” Dr. Wu Han Sum added, explaining he and his colleagues are “open to whatever the Democratic process decides.”

“Unfortunately, we are well past the point of controlling our overpopulation through education, birth control, and the empowerment of women. In fact, we should probably just go ahead and kill 300 million women right off the bat, as they are the reproducers.”

Because the world’s population is expected to double before the end of the 21st century – an outcome that would lead to a considerable decrease in the availability of food, land, and water – researchers said, bottom line, it would be helpful if a lot of people choose to die willingly, the advantage being these volunteers could decide for themselves whether they wish to die slowly or quickly, painfully or peacefully, and so on based on their own identity and religious beliefs.

Additionally, the scientists noted in order to stop the destruction of global environmental systems in heavily populated regions, there’s no avoiding the reality half the world’s progeny is going to have to be sterilized.

“The longer we wait, the higher the number of deadwood who will have to die, so we might as well just get it over with,” said Dr. Chelsea Pepper, head of agricultural studies at Purdue Univer­sity, and the leading proponent of a worldwide decide to death day, in which 2.3 billion people would kill themselves en masse at exactly the same time so no one has to go first.


“At this point, it’s merely a question of coordination. If we can get the populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Beijing, India, Europe, and Latin America to voluntarily off themselves at 6 p.m. EST on June 1, we can kill the people who actually need to be killed and the planet can finally start renewing its resources, thereby giving all the other species a chance to survive.”

Thus far, humanity is presented with a great variety of death options, among them, poisoning the world’s air supply with Lysol, picking one person per household to inject bleach in the privacy of his or her home, mass beheadings, and gathering 2.3 billion people all in one place and obliterating them with a single hydrogen bomb.

Sources confirmed if a death solution is not in place by May 31, the U.N., in the interest of preserving the human race, will mobilize its peacekeeping forces and gun down as many people as necessary.

“I don’t care how it happens, but a ton of Africans have to go, because by 2025, there’s no way the shithole continent will be able to feed itself,” said Dr. Henry Craig of the Population Research Institute. “And by my estimation, three babies wiil need to die for every septuagenarian, because their longer life expectancy means babies have the potential to release far more greenhouse gases going forward.”

While the majority of the world’s populace reportedly understands this is the only option left to save civilization, not all members of the human race are eager to die.


“I personally would rather live, but taking the long view, I can see how ensuring the survival of humanity and livinglbeings in general might be our best option now,” said Norwich, CT resident and father of three Jason Atkins. “I guess if we had it to do all over again, it would make sense to do a better job conserving the earth’s finite resources.”

“Hopefully, the people who remain on the planet will use the voluntary mass slaughter of their friends and loved ones as an incentive to be more responsible and like, pollute not so much going forward,” he added.

9 thoughts on “Scientists: ‘Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?’

  1. I had to see where this came from and found The Onion. Still, it isn’t entirely far fetched that some would be thinking this way. Of course, as climate change and its consequences have their way with the agricultural systems around the world, the result will likely be similar, but slower.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. If there is no room in hell anymore, the dead will walk the earth. Quote from instruction manual from a movie from 2004… Thank you for a great story for a change, mind needs a good stimulation time to time. As long what is real and what feels real… Waiting more of your stories, sincerely

    Liked by 1 person

  3. To everyone who may be reading. This comment refers to the ethics of this publisher website, not to the specific article here above. To understand the comment better, please check this other post.

    This is scary. Not the article, but the fact that this blog has actual scientists writing as authors and editors and nobody, NOBODY, gives a single damn about the original news being a satirical article from The Onion, and about the fact that it is posted here AS IF IT WAS A REAL NEWS STORY.
    So, You guys might be a bot. Or a bunch of bots. Or a human that paid for a bunch of bot to help out with the editing. Whatever. I wanna talk to READERS who end up here because they might be genuinely looking for information and commentary on the Corona pandemic.

    So, Context MATTERS. No real scientist, or actual scientific body of experts, has ever said something like “well, we gotta kill a third of the population just for the world to be sustainable”. That headline is persuasive because it’s so vague that it can sound like something that can be proven, but also like something that is not verifiable at all. Just like the stuff you hear from people who read your hand.

    If this article referred to actual scientists, what could they possibly mean by this “sacrifice of 1/3 to make human lifestyle sustainable” story, SPECIFICALLY?

    Do they mean that pollution kills a lot of people? Sure, fair enough, but this claim has no logical implication for the Coronavirus lockdowns. No conclusion about policy can be made from this observation.

    Think about the point made by the article (read between the lines…):
    – observation A = industrial capitalism kills millions for the sake of efficiency in production & consumption;
    – observation B = we are resorting to lockdowns so that less people die from the Covid infection;
    – conclusion C = we should lift the lockdowns? –> non-sequitur: that way we kill people with the virus AND the pollution.

    This thing here sounds very much like a fallacy. Also, as I will try to argue in the next paragraph, the point of the lockdown is not really to “prevent people from dying”, like many erroneously repeat (on both sides of the aisle). It’s abut preventing people from dying UNTREATED. It’s one of those subtle differences that actually make ALL the difference. And NOBODY is explaining this in public media. Not the mainstream media, not the rebel media, not the fact checkers, not the WHO, not anybody. It’s the argumentative debacle of humanity.

    Please don’t take me wrong: I’m not the thought police. I am not asking you to “accept the established authority of science”. Quite the opposite: I know perfectly well that you have been brought to this place because you already had way too many experiences where things didn’t really “add up” with science, and often times these weird mismatches were entangled in all sorts of political controversies. And yes, a very dogmatic scientific education has also played a role in this by casting scientists and experts as embodiments of truth, prophets of factual accuracy (few of them would be willing to admit it, but that’s mostly because they’re paranoid about “losing public trust in truth”, not because they’re mean).

    Their only “crime” is, they systematically forget how slow good science is, all the work, the debate, the peer reviews, the replications that any scientific paper HAS to go through before it can be considered “good, robust science”. And sometimes all that work is not enough to prevent bad science from being published and well-meaning people from believing it, no matter what information becomes available later on. Again, this is because western education spent the last 4 decades tricking itself into believing that science can deliver the answer to all questions here and now. It’s just about gettin’ them data, man!!

    Problem is, data don’t tell you anything about what you should do with them. If you haven’t specified what your objective is, then by definition you don’t have a policy. You really don’t. If you take action based on the data because you think “the data suggests we should do X rather than Y because there is more evidence for X than for Y”, you are likely to run into troubles sooner or later. John Ioannidis made exactly the same mistake in his declarations. But he keeps releasing statements, so I’m becoming more and more inclined to think he just doesn’ t care about policy anymore. It’s just about noise and visibility. seriously, the guy’s name is repeated on the shadiest scam-ad websites I’ve seen recently on the internet, there are youtube channels with BOTS (!!) reposting his interviews thousands of times. Probably some kid having fun with algorithm vulnerability to get easy cash.

    It took 8 years before the infamous paper by Andrew Wakefield (which started the whole “vaccines-cause-autism” thing) was eventually retracted. And I perfectly understand why someone might see the Wakefield case more as a confirmation that scientists are up to some shady agenda and should therefore be distrusted. It’ s not irrational (they tought you science was “facts”, after all, didn’ t they?), it’ s a natural reaction of distrust: when scientists don’t get it straight, we lose our trust in it because we expect them to be straight the first time, all the time. And that’s simply impossible. Scientists do not like to remember that “truth” and “established facts” are always TIME-DEPENDENT. We trick ourselves into believing that science holds the truth for everything we observe, including stuff we never observed before (like a new pathogen). Also, this cult of “facts” has to be stopped. PUBLIC POLICY IS PRIMARILY ABOUT VALUES, NOT EVIDENCE. More specifically, the lockdowns are meant to PREVENT A SITUATION THAT SOCIETY FINDS MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE, I.E. HAVING TO DENY MEDICAL TREATMENT TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE A 100% CHANCE OF DYING IF NOT TREATED – THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE CURRENTLY OCCUPYING AN ICU BED.

    The problem is not that PEOPLE DIE. Society is quite used to people dying. The problem is that USUALLY, PEOPLE DIE *DESPITE* MEDICAL TREATMENT (unavoidable deaths), NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES TO BE TREATED.

    One may argue that in the Global South, situations where people cannot get treatment and die because of this are everyday routine. But again, this is not an argument, in and of itself. If Global South countries, under “normal” circumstances, had enough resources to provide emergency treatment to almost everyone who needs it (and I know it’s a very heavy “almost” thrown in there) – they would likely go on lockdown too.
    Again, we trick ourselves into thinking that “facts speak for themselves” (grossly wrong misconception) because we have been unconsciously trained to see policy as expertise, and policy decisions as a matter of costs, benefits, and utility. Turns out, utility is not a very useful notion when it comes to a situations where hospitals are overburdened by inflows of patients with respiratory syndrome. We apply cost-benefit analysis, we ask questions like “how many people will the virus kill that were about to die anyway?” and “how many people will die because of the economic damage?” and soon enough, we start repeating a very carefully prepared slogan: “the cure cannot be worse than the disease”. It sounds good, rational, fair. And spontaneous. Doesn’t it?

    Well, all good slogans sound spontaneous. Otherwise they wouldn’t be good slogans. The liberal left is struggling with its own “brand management” precisely because it doesn’t put any effort in coming up with good slogans, good meaning-making practices of storytelling that people can relate with. They wanna be precise and tell “the facts” straight, because they tend to be a little bit naive about how actual people, including themselves, make up their mind when going about dissonant information. And boy, is there an AWFUL LOT of dissonant information out there.

    This is the market-for-lemons of information technology manifesting itself in all its damaging potential. We are having a democratic crisis that needs a collective fix. We need more understanding, more serious discussion, and less blame-gaming.

    If you actually got all the way down here with your reading attention, please go watch some recent keynote speeches by people like Jaron Lanier and Danah Boyd (Techies that are critical of Silicon Valley, Social Media Tycoons and financialized capitalism).

    Yes, they’re long. Yes, they sound boring at first. Set the reproduction speed at 1.5x or 2x. Give it a try, or maybe look for the article “Social Epistemology” on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phylosophy. Or do both. Or do none of the above. But don’t get fixated on fighting a resistance war against the other half of society, which is convinced that they’re doing the exact same thing against your faction. There is no agenda. Just amplified confusion. Or better, there are at least two agendas, but all this noise is making them blur into the background.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Of course this article is a satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal.

    The fact some people might take it seriously shows how decayed and corrupt our society is in the first place. It must be decadent to take mass murder seriously as a alternative to your problems.

    On the other hand, Ecofascism is a real thing.

    Ecofascism is coming precisely because we did not fix the climate crisis when we had a chance to do so 50 years ago.

    No, we do not endorse ecofascism or comic book plots here at O Society – duh!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s