A culling as a solution

I’m not trying to advocate for it, but when I’m faced with it I find it hard to argue against all the ills people do to the environment.

I'm not trying to advocate for it, but when I'm faced with it I find it hard to argue against all the ills people do to the environment.
Like hell you're not, you're claiming there's no morality that prevents it. This genocide you talk about won't happen on it's own, it would require intense cooperation of governments across the globe and the use of force involving the military, police and intelligence services of the most powerful nations. Which are already largely under the control of the elite 1%. Who coincidentally reap the greatest benefit from the current unsustainable socio-economic system while preventing any meaningful action to be taken to fundamentally change the status quo they're so invested in. Climate change denial being the most glaring example of this insanity. Want to make a real difference in the world, remove that 1% from their position of wealth, power and control and implement sustainable polices across the board which would by definition include the elimination of the wealth gap that allows such draconian control and also underlies our consumer disposable social models. The problem isn't mainly that there's too many people, the problem is much more about the "elite" that are protecting their interests no matter the cost. And in any genocide to reduce numbers you can count on them to do everything they can to throw the rest of us under the bus which has been the pattern already for a very long time. So what you're really talking about here is a continuation of sacrifice of the vulnerable by the powerful that has been one of the most disgusting parts of human civilization since its beginning. A far more moral and ethical solution isn't to engage in mass murder on a global scale, the best course is to use the best technology we have in the most sustainable manner possible no matter the consequences to the existing status quo. Which your insane "culling" would seek to preserve no matter what you claim. There would be no way to murder so many people without the approval and participation of the existing masters of the current power structure. Talk about no morality.

Morality is a weak argument because it can apply to the ones culling. To them it’s more moral and ethical for humans to off themselves rather than cause further damage to the planet and cause more species to go extinct. Whatever is moral is arbitrary and people can spin it to make their side to be in the right. That’s why it’s weak, it’s just comes down to “don’t do it because I say so”.
Actual reasons from what I read are not knowing if it’s going to work, or if some species that developes intelligence later on won’t do the same, things that are actual points besides “it makes me uncomfortable and is wrong because I say so”.

Morality is a weak argument because it can apply to the ones culling. To them it's more moral and ethical for humans to off themselves rather than cause further damage to the planet and cause more species to go extinct. Whatever is moral is arbitrary and people can spin it to make their side to be in the right. That's why it's weak, it's just comes down to "don't do it because I say so". Actual reasons from what I read are not knowing if it's going to work, or if some species that developes intelligence later on won't do the same, things that are actual points besides "it makes me uncomfortable and is wrong because I say so".
You can't use moral judgments when defining what morality is. You started this conversation by saying survival of the species and planet is morally superior. Now, damage to the planet, other species going extinct are your moral judgments. You say other people's judgments are arbitrary. You're not engaging the discussion, you're just dismissing others.

No, I said give a reason why a culling wouldn’t work and isn’t a solution to the issue.
Once again you’re putting words in where they don’t belong.

No, I said give a reason why a culling wouldn't work and isn't a solution to the issue. Once again you're putting words in where they don't belong.
You must be an idiot. Genocide is immoral. I don't give a damn what you call it, genocide by any other name smells just as bad. How do you propose carrying out this genocide? How will you keep people from fighting back? How do you decide who to murder?

The method I think people would use (from previous media portrayals of it) would be bioterrorism, likely some kind of virus.
But once again you fail to give real reasons (beyond morality) as to why not. Because to those who believe they are right, your morality means squat. I thought this was the center for inquiry and so I expected less “squishy” replies than I would get from the masses. Makes me wonder if morality is a hinderance when it comes to this situation.

The method I think people would use (from previous media portrayals of it) would be bioterrorism, likely some kind of virus. But once again you fail to give real reasons (beyond morality) as to why not. Because to those who believe they are right, your morality means squat. I thought this was the center for inquiry and so I expected less "squishy" replies than I would get from the masses. Makes me wonder if morality is a hinderance when it comes to this situation.
You would have been good Nazi. And you still haven't answered my questions. I want to see a project plan, not some vague "Oh, we'll just spread some viruses" bullshit.

I’m going to parrot the show Blacklist for that one.
In short turn people into viral bombs to “detonate” around the world.

I'm going to parrot the show Blacklist for that one. In short turn people into viral bombs to "detonate" around the world.
You haven't thought this through at all. You're just going to indiscriminately kill people all over the world? How about I just walk up to you and kick you in the balls. Would that be OK?
I'm going to parrot the show Blacklist for that one. In short turn people into viral bombs to "detonate" around the world.
You haven't thought this through at all. You're just going to indiscriminately kill people all over the world? How about I just walk up to you and kick you in the balls. Would that be OK? You fail to comprehend, the point would be to wipe out humans in that sense.

If you were new here I’d write you off as a troll. Because you’ve been around a while and shown flashes of intelligence I’m taking you seriously, and seriously you are one sick person. As I said earlier, you would have made a good Nazi. A kick in the balls is too good for the likes of you.

If you were new here I'd write you off as a troll. Because you've been around a while and shown flashes of intelligence I'm taking you seriously, and seriously you are one sick person. As I said earlier, you would have made a good Nazi. A kick in the balls is too good for the likes of you.
You can't make an argument outside morality, so I what you say has little value. Morality can be an excuse to justify anything. Perhaps you need an example. Humans are just performing the basic functions of life, survive and reproduce. Like any organism that does that very well it's continued existence would be at the expense of everything. That's not bad though, that's just the consequence of a highly successful organism. They frequently refer to humans like a virus, but viruses are also highly successful at what organisms do. Same with bacteria. Survive and reproduce. They don't care if it's at the expense of their host. I don't believe anything else in nature has any regard for others or their surroundings. They just focus on survival and reproduction. They just happen to have checks in place to limit their numbers. To punish humans for "crimes" would be the equivalent of life punishing itself for doing what it does. Illogical to say the least. One could say our limiting factor is our brain and "morality". But what's to say in our absence a similarly successful organism without those inhibiting factors wouldn't extinguish all life in its own operation of surivival?
You can't make an argument outside morality, so I what you say has little value.
At least I have some morals. That is more than you can say for yourself. Your continued argument that morality is meaningless is evidence you are a despicable person.
You can't make an argument outside morality, so I what you say has little value.
At least I have some morals. That is more than you can say for yourself. Your continued argument that morality is meaningless is evidence you are a despicable person. Your opinion makes no difference. You're inability to argue outside of morality is starting to make me think that those in favor of culling may be right
No, I said give a reason why a culling wouldn't work and isn't a solution to the issue. Once again you're putting words in where they don't belong.
It's actually that you don't understand what the word means or how to use it, but you're not responding to that, so, I'll answer your ridiculously stupid question. The argument against culling is that you would end up with a worse world than you have now. You would only temporarily solve the problem of overpopulation. Especially if you used a viral method, who survives would be randomly selected. You are assuming a wide range of problems are related to population and apparently nothing else, and simply reducing it would solve them. More likely, you would have the same distribution of ignorance, greed and altruism that we have now. But instead of a world like 100 years ago where only smart and powerful people could create nuclear weapons, they'd just be lying around, waiting for any idiot to figure out how to launch one. The technology to feed 9 billion would still exist and there would be no one to control the environmental impact of any of it. So, if I survived, here in the upper Mississippi river valley, I could control a lot of food production and reek a lot of havoc with my neighbors downstream. I'm pretty sure there's still some nukes around here somewhere too.

And what about wiping out the whole of humanity?

They don't care if it's at the expense of their host. I don't believe anything else in nature has any regard for others or their surroundings. They just focus on survival and reproduction. They just happen to have checks in place to limit their numbers. To punish humans for "crimes" would be the equivalent of life punishing itself for doing what it does. Illogical to say the least. One could say our limiting factor is our brain and "morality". But what's to say in our absence a similarly successful organism without those inhibiting factors wouldn't extinguish all life in its own operation of surivival?
There's this book, Origin of Species, it talks a lot about cooperation as a survival mechanism. You should read it.
And what about wiping out the whole of humanity?
What about it? Move the goalposts much? I have a personal preference for us dying off about 300,000 years from now, or possibly evolving into something more benign, but that's my personal preference. How do you know that we won't be the species that creates a way to deflect asteroids, therefore saving the planet? If that's the goal. Or are you going to say that's a moral goal? Once again changing your OP.

The original point was wiping out humans, entirely or in part.