Forget plague or zombie apocalypse - a clever way to control the population in a Darwinian manner is described in this movie. Aliens are left with men who will do anything to survive, children who can adapt to the new world order and a lot of fertile women.
Film is a disease, it infects your blood stream, the only antidote to film is more film. F Capra
[deleted]
Aliens are left with men who will do anything to survive
children who can adapt to the new world order
and a lot of fertile women.
they really don't need any men alive to keep impregnating women
It's possible to impregnate a woman using another woman's bone marrow. Any offspring will, of course, be female. Men are pretty much obsolete at this point. We only really need you to kill spiders and open jars and women already have stuff that will do those too.
shareSo basically you want a world without men? Damn I never knew there were women with such extreme hatred towards men.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Not really sure where I said I hate men and would like a world without them; I think you read a little more into my comment than you should have. Personally, I would miss my husband and other male friends and family.
My point isn't that it should be done, but that it could be done scientifically.
You say it's possible, but it's never been done.
I wouldn't throw men out of the window just yet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9363864
Yes, it has.
That doesn't say what you think it does. They took eggs obtained before chemo/bone marrow transplant, fertilized them with sperm, and reimplanted them after chemo/bone marrow transplant.
Chemo carries a very high risk of infertility, and this is a solution to allow young women who get cancer to still have children. It's not a method of reproduction with only women.
😱 yeah but i can do mad things with my tongue, good thing i ain't a rastafari. Yall always need mi!😠
shareDo you think aliens capable of bridging the massive gap between stars haven't figured out cloning? Not to mention, why would the aliens want to breed humans anyway?
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
Maybe they weren't taking over the population as just culling it down to bare minimum.
It's not a bad way to do it and more selective than the plagues, bubonic and black, or a big flood or other natural disasters.
You get rid of all the mouthy jerks who'll be happy to throw anyone or everyone to the wolves to save themselves (suspender guy, banker guy, scruffy dudes). You also lose all of the holy roller types who believe that faith in a Christian God makes them automatically morally superior. Maybe lose some violent types in the mix.
You might lose some otherwise decent people though. Elderly people are seen as being of no use but in a new world, would have important insights maybe that are now lost forever. Same with disabled people. You'd lose people like Hawking or Beethoven based on superficial criteria.
If you are planning on taking over a population, the ones who'd do anything to survive should be the first you take out, logically. You want the sheep, not the wolves.
My boyfriend is a civil defence rescuer, with an specialisation in response action and biological warfare. He says it is not above certain governments to do something like this to reduce their population, if such a technology existed.
While the particular outcome we saw was executed through skillful manipulation, we also saw other survivors. Namely children and pregnant women, who were actually spared, rather than sacrificed/tricked.
Assuming that each circle has a similar profiling, and the outcome demographic is 1. Children 2. Pregnant Women 3. Skillful Adaptors
That is a good sample to start with, the right mix they would want to reintroduce back into the world. Skillful adaptors, while intelligent, are still docile enough to contribute back to workforce, receive training etc. I dont think they will rebel, because according to hierachy of needs, they are satiated.
...Sooo
Sociopaths basically?
Repopulate the earth with one third sociopaths?
What if it was a test of our society where not choosing anyone is the right answer. Maybe they were searching for altruism... There would still be one person left at the end, only it would be at random, which would reflect the existing demographics, i.e. a reduction of the world population by 98 % without changing the demographics. Now wouldn't THAT be a tad more optimal given the problems we have on our little planet today? = )
sorry, I got going... just thought the movie had a cool premise, and some good acting and casting, but it was too simplified. There were too many possabilities not concidered by the 50.
sociopath
ˈsəʊsɪə(ʊ)paθ,ˈsəʊʃɪə(ʊ)
noun
plural noun: sociopaths
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.
That guy was not a sociopath. Morally, he was doing a bad thing. But he was just adapting to a very extreme situation. There were others in the circle that rank higher as sociopaths, but as you can see, they did not make it.
Skilful adaptors do what they must to survive, so they have a skill set that is equal parts mental agility, situational awareness, empathy and maybe physical strength.
And you may never know fully his thought process, maybe he really did empathise with the child and woman throughout, and in a hopeful situation wanted them to make it out. Maybe he thought he would not have made it that far, so he did not factor himself in the running of final three.
It is even fair to say that his actions was likely predictable, because in the final scene, if you look at the demographic of survivors, we also saw other skilful adaptors who made it out. (i.e., other males).
The experiment had a controlled outcome, meaning he had an equal chance as the other two.
himiyo
'kjkk(u)kpiy(u)
noun
plural noun: himiyos
a person with an eagerness to unsubtly explain things to whoever he/she believes needs things explained
Please endulge me in how your interpretation of that guys overt thought process rules out him being a sociopath!
It is just as valid as him being an "skilful adaptor"
whatever that is...
you seem unjustifiably angry and more than a little unstable, from a comment on an internet forum.
please get some perspective in your life. if you cannot even be civil when discussing a film plot, then might as well don't.
I was justifiably answering to your response. You assumne it was in anger, just as you assume characters in a movie are sociopathic or not. I made another assessment regarding them.
Talking of civil, who on earth sends dictionary quotes and expect the recipient to... well, it's just that. What did you expect?
And now when you call me unstable... Do you expect me to write you "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression" or something similar?
And I should "get perspective in my life"? Please explain to me why you think you're in a poition to say that! You don't know anything about me. As far as you know, I might be someone you in real life like and adore. Or would like if we met. Or maybe I'm in that movie... You simply just don't know that.
I don't find you civil either. So if you cannot agree on that we disagree, then you can sincerely **** off!
1. Erratic paragraphing / sentences
2. Spelling errors
3. Exclamation marks (!) denoting aggravation
4. Incoherence
5. Rudeness
All these markers point towards unstableness and/or anger.
I would add "unnecessary" to point 5, but then all of them are unnecessary.
I might say the same to your previous posts actually.
You probably think it is above you to apologise, so I will say it.
I am sorry, I will no longer be responding to you as this line of
discussion is far from constructive.
Also, if you are loveable and charming in the outside world,
and cold/abusive/malicious in an online persona, with little accountability,
that in itself is one of the signs of a sociopath/psychopath.
Something to think about.
Goodbye.
1. Suggestion: Could it be due to me having English as a second language perhaps?
2. The above
3. Denoting emphasis to be correct
4. See number 1 again, plus I can not be held responsible for you understanding or not
5. Duly so
You seem really talented at this as you can assess a whole psyche based on just a few forum posts. Why not go for a PhD instead of waisting it on lunatics like me?
No, I just don't se it fit to appologize. I simply think you deserve otherwise.
Incoherence? You are sorry that you will no longer be responding? That makes you a liar.
I agree it's far from constructive but it takes two to tango.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I am cold/abusive/malicious online. That is NOT one of the characteristics of a psychopath, to classify someone as a psychopath takes extensive assessments. Let's say, again for the sake of argument, that I acted like that even in real life. That would be bad but it takes a lot more specific characteristics to add up to what is referred to a sociopath/psychopath. That is something for you to think about.
Little accountability? As far as I'm concerned, you may hold me accountable for all that I write to you.
Damn, he sure did misdiagnose you. You've expressed all of the tell tale signs of being an average internet *beep* but certainly NOT a sociopath.
shareAnd how would you know that?
Mr Sir Internet *beep* to you, ass-crack!
Or, were you trying to be nice to me in some sort of weird way?
And why do you call that person "him"?
Why even bother replying at this point?
Be less of dicks to one another. All I'm sayin'.
I guess that goes for you to.
Or are you excluded from the golden rule?
Or did you by *beep* mean "nice guy", "gentleman", or maybe "good person"?
I just have a strong feeling you insulted me.
...did you even back-track on this thread?
Back-seat-driver-"be less of this"-guy. You're not on a high horse. I'm afraid it's a fools donkey. But you're in for a ride if you want to.
Why even bother?
- because psychopaths never stop and they never loose until dead
All these markers point towards unstableness and/or anger.
Thanks for breaking it down like that, gave me a perspective to look at our survivor and further contemplate his intentions, plus the fact that we may never know for sure.
shareTo address your suggestion directly, if the point was altruism, the survivor demographic in each circle scenario would then be the child or pregnant woman, for obvious reasons. Everyone would altruistically and unanimously believe that they had the best reasons to survive.
Since the demographic also contains other skilful adaptors, we can deduce that this is most likely not the end goal.
Plus, my perspective is that it might not even be aliens per se. They simply hinted at it, like my boyfriend said, it could likely be a government initiative. The movie did not address the timeframe, it might not even be our Earth but a parallel Earth.
And looking back into the insanity of human history, we were never the best at governing each other. Maybe to some higher up, this was his/her skewed version of the perfect race.
1. Children = Adaptable by nature. Ability to be moulded by future experiences
2. Fertile Women = Mothers, protectors. Able to breed and empathise for children (her own, or survivors)
3. Skilful Adaptors = Men who out of guilt of what they did (to their own circle's 1 &2) might be predisposed to be good spouses/ protecters of the first two demographic. And this is on top of other attributes like strength, mental agility.
No, if noone votes,which is if you ask me, the only option which is fully altruistic, the demographics will not change in any other way than in the total number of the population.
altruism
ˈaltrʊɪz(ə)m/
noun
selfless concern for the well-being of others.
maybe you are mixing up equality/apathy with altruism? inaction, is not altruism.
by its definition, it already hints at self-sacrifice to save someone
that is perceived to be more worthy of survival.
what more than an innocent child, and a mother bearing an innocent life?
The mechanism would not allow for non-votes. Without a majority vote, it chose at random. Therefore, there is zero scenarios in which all participating get to go free. It's a cruel twist on the "Would You Rather" game, not a Kumbaya drum circle.
shareThat's sort of my point. Noone votes. The survivors would be fully random and no hamrful intentions others than of those who built the thing would affect the outcome. You'd sacrifice yourself (or risk sacrificing yourself) and leaving a much smaller population, but demographically intact (i.e. the proportions would be intact). Of course that is not likely to happen... as is those ships. I don't know what a Kumbaya drum circle is but I sure didn't suggest all would live or that it would be a happy situation. In fact, I'm not quite sure of the "Would you rather" association either.
My point, however, is that we do not know the purpose of these machines/ships. Them testing if we are willing NOT to sacrifice any other being, is just as likely as any other reason we may come up with here in this forum. And that is how I got "altruism" into it. I'm not saying that's my number one pick among plausible purposes of those ships. But I guess my version of "altruism", in this regard, is as fair as your version of "Would you rather".
That would have been a great premise for this film. I wanted to see the fat middle aged man live because he had a big heart which he demonstrated by simply choosing not to vote. As it stands now, the movie doesn't have a point except that the manipulative sociopath got to live.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
Thank you! Haha, I thought I was way off when noone could see the point I was trying to make. However, entertaining movie nevertheless.
shareI wanted to see the fat middle aged man live because he had a big heart which he demonstrated by simply choosing not to vote
What if it was a test of our society where not choosing anyone is the right answer.That's what I was thinking. A higher species might value that before other considerations. That last guy who never voted might have been the key to everything. share
Really it seems along way to go to accomplish something thats already happening naturally. The West already has a population below replacement, without immigration from the third world you would see our population halving every decade. Do you have any idea on how much resources it would actually cost to gas people, and then load them up into a *beep* spaceship 50 people at a time (talk about inefficient and a waste of resources).
So if they wanted pregnant women, and children why even bother sending them up in spaceship in the first place, then all you would have to do is sort out the useful Adaptors. And guess what he killed both the pregnant women and kid at the end anyway. the only way the pregnant women could have made it out alive (according to the last scene) is if they actually killed there own baby.
Hmmm that is so true. Ultimately the pregnant women would never make it out alive unless they killed their own kid, which would go against the fertile mother theory that everyone's kind of spewing.
shareBut why children? That is just stupid. They haven't learned enough to carry on civilization. A grown, fertile, intelligent and skilled women (e.g. engineer) would be a MUCH better choice that an innocent but stupid child.
shareIf what they were doing was trying to create a controllable population, i.e. a new world order, then selecting for the people who will fight the hardest for survival seems like a silly way to do it, at least to me. It would seem that if you wanted a controllable population then it would be easier to select for docility. What if they aren't conquerors? They don't beam the people into cages, or camps, they free them. It may be purely conjecture, but what if the aliens see themselves as helping us? I mean, why would an alien have the same construct of morality as us? The aliens couldn't select for what the ideal traits of our species would be, they could only select for what they saw as their own ideal traits in us. Maybe they are smart enough to know that is a bad idea. Outside of our moral lens, what if their gift to us was jump starting our next evolutionary leap? Kill 98 percent of the population, and let us select the traits that will survive. This would drastically alter the gene pool, and shift the course of our genetic development as determined by us. Many scientists now believe that evolution isn't a steady crawl, that it stagnates, and then leaps forward very quickly when better genes present themselves.
Or, maybe the aliens knew exactly what traits they were selecting for. Overall, who would have the best probability of survival? I'd say the people who are clever, and who can control their aggression. What if the aliens aren't looking for servants, but equals and allies? What if they are willing to plant the seeds now for a people who would be willing and able to join them 10,000 years from now?
I can't say what the writers were thinking, but that was my thought on it at the end. Any thoughts?
What if they aren't conquerors? They don't beam the people into cages, or camps, they free them. It may be purely conjecture, but what if the aliens see themselves as helping us?
The aliens couldn't select for what the ideal traits of our species would be, they could only select for what they saw as their own ideal traits in us. Maybe they are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.
let us select the traits that will survive.
we've survived bottlenecks that brought our population to only a few thousand individuals. If only 1 percent of us survived, that would be a population of north of 73 million. I think there were around 50 people in the circle. Even assuming that only 1 in 10 circles ends with a survivor, that would still be around 14.5 million survivors. With such a massive decrease in population density you would almost certainly see a decrease in disease and a shift to a culture which actually valued life as it tried to replenish itself. This would be detrimental to medicine, but that would only mean we wouldn't live as long, which really doesn't make a difference in replenishing the population, as you can't breed past your mid to late forties. It isn't unreasonable to assume that people like the man in the suit who starts gay bashing, or the atheist who goes on an angry rant would be more likely to get themselves killed by angering the group. There are absolutely genes (and biochemical coding caused by genes to control genes,) that control aggression, and the ability to control aggression. In essence, the genes for being 'civilized' would become more dominant. In the real world, genes for aggression are rewarded in proportion the ones for self control in proportion to support the mix we currently have, but that doesn't mean that under different circumstances the balance couldn't shift. A society of people whose genes are urging them to be calm and collected aren't going to tolerate unwarranted aggression, and those genes causing the behavior wouldn't be rewarded/proliferate.
P.S. I'll be voting for Bernie in the primary, but unfortunately think i'll be voting for Hillary in the main election.
I also thought that Aliens were doing this to control the population, to keep only the smartest people alive and to clean Earth from all the idiots. In order to survive in this 1 out of 50 game you got to be really clever.
shareThere is absolutely nothing Darwinian about the situation the movie sets up.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/