MovieChat Forums > Avengers: Infinity War (2018) Discussion > Sterilize 50% instead

Sterilize 50% instead

posted 2 months ago by ace2 (607)
6 replies | jump to latest

Barring a sudden shift in the ecosystem, I believe the balance of resources and consumption flow gradually, precluding any catastrophic outcome or sudden mass extinction. Nevertheless, Thanos could have just used the "stones" to render half the population infertile instead of erasing half of life. Free vasectomies, would have been a whacky plotline.

1. More humane / Less disruptive
2. Some might have actually preferred it but were uninsured / Reduced teen pregnancies
3. Less risk: Would take a while for people to catch on, maybe not even know it was him
4. Yes it would take 70 years for the effect, but that is a blip on the cosmic time scale.

[–] Truthtalker (2030) 2 months ago

Agreed

[–] FootOfDavros (8691) 2 months ago

Either way, it's a pointless endeavour.

I remember posting about this at the time but if you look at the world population:-
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

All he actually did was take us back to the 1970s! Some time in 1972 if you half the 2018 population...

Anyway, either way a few decades later we'd all be back where we started. But who knows, maybe that was enough for Thanos. Not sure if he was so much an environmentalist but rather just wanted some peace.

[–] ace2 (607) 2 months ago

Keep in mind that while the population has grown so have resources in a way. Technically resources are finite, but technology has a way of increasing how much we can access - this is termed total factor productivity in economics. We have gone from every family having to farm to eat, to a world where less than 2% of the population feeds everyone else.

[–] FootOfDavros (8691) 2 months ago

True but not sure what the relevance is tbh?

[–] ace2 (607) 2 months ago

The point I was trying to make is assuming technology marches on you wouldn't be exactly back where you started after a few decades. The population might be back to the same level but there would be significantly more resources to go around due to ongoing advances in agriculture etc.

But again no need to even get on this train because ecosystems are in balance and they naturally take care of population control with no need for an external influence.

[–] FootOfDavros (8691) 2 months ago

Okay, got you. Yeah, I didn't mean literally back in the 70s, just in terms of population.

But interesting point - not sure whether that would mean we'd actually double our population again in an even shorter time.