Just assume that for whatever reason the future of the planet requires a controlled cull of the human population. Overpopulation, resource scarcity, etc etc could be the reasons.
How will it be done?
By the rich for the rich.
The same way it has always been done. Divide into factions, and murder each other until the optimum population is reached.
If you’re talking war (and I’m sure you are), won’t work. Wars never make more than a very temporary dent in the population.
And sometimes not even that. For instance, Vietnam was in some sort of war from the early 1950s to the mid 1970s. You’d think the population would at least not go up so fast during that period, or at least during the heavier fighting and bombing of the late 60s-early 70s. Well, you’d be wrong. The first chart on this page shows its population from 1950 to the present. No dips or flattening at all.
As for the OP, if we absolutely had to cut the population, probably the best way would be to widely release some disease with a high mortality rate and then not treat it. It would still only be a termporary reduction, but at least more pronounced than war. But it wouldn’t be controlled, as the OP wants. And for that matter, war wouldn’t be controlled either.
It’s pretty easy, just leave it to chance. War, famine or disease will sort it out in due course as the climate changes.
How is it you feel comfortable speaking of genicide in terms like “cull”?
In my experience, people who talk about “culling” humanity never imagine themselves among those who’ll be dying.
The latter will give us a front row seat to such a process. The first really big country to undergo a “cull” will likely be India.
I don’t imagine it ever actively being done. We already don’t do it. Every now and then there’s a famine in Africa, which would seem to fit your criterion of “resource scarcity”. When those famines happen, nobody with more than a couple of brain cells is dumb enough to say “hey, let’s cull the herd.”
In a war, combatants tend to kill other combatants, and tend not to kill non-combatants. The killing of non-combatants is typically collateral damage (either by direct injury from proximity to combat, or through starvation/disease due to collapse of the economy and civil services). A big war might take a substantial bite out of the population (e.g. the USSR during WW2), but when the military objective is achieved, the killing tends to stop.
You’re basically reiterating the definition of an intra-species cull, although maybe one in which both sides are armed such that it’s a fair fight. I think the OP is asking how factions will be identified/selected for culling. In order to have any chance of pulling off something like that in the future, you need to stoke xenophobia, which starts by identifying one group as being different enough to be perceived as subhuman troublemakers (and therefore worthy of being deliberately killed). That’s pretty much the way all the big genocides have happened (although I think these have had more to do with simple out-group hostility than with disease or scarcity of resources).
A natural (or partially man made) heat wave or rising temperatures resulting in human deaths is a disaster not a culling.
We don’t say Californians will be culled by seismic activity, or the gulf coast residents by hurricanes or the mid-westerners by twisters. So why Indians ?
We regularly "cull’ Americans through the mechanism of mass shootings.
India heat wave. India drought. Increasing temperatures and decreasing water supply.
This will be the future for an increasing number of people around the world.
Gun violence kills about 13,000 people a year in the US (not counting suicides). As big a tragedy as that may be, it’s only about 0.004 percent of the whole population, an amount that hardly anyone would define as “culling.”
How about people that talk about a “cull” have to volunteer themselves, their families, and their own social groups to go first? Seems like a good place to start.
Moderator Action
Considering that there is no historical precedent for this or any sort of formal plan in place, I can’t imagine that a factual answer can be found for the OP.
I’m not sure if there’s enough here for a debate, but let’s give GD a try. If it ends up not being debate-worthy, the mods there can kick it over to IMHO later.
Moving thread from GQ to GD.
OK, if you want to be rational about it, what number and percentage of people in India die due to heat? It’s also a tiny, tiny number.
My guess: some sort of global euthanasia program targeting the elderly, chronically ill, autistic, mentally handicapped, mentally ill, criminals, “undesirables,” etc.
It’ll be kind of like the Holocaust, but rebranded under new labeling.
First they’d just shoot people. Later, to be more efficient, women and children, screaming in terror and begging for their lives, would be herded into gas chambers at bayonet point and murdered. Sometimes forced starvation would be given a go.
You know this has happened before, right?
We won’t really need a “cull” in the sense of having to kill off large numbers; we’ll likely get a similar depopulating effect by falling birth rates. Improving female education and opportunity will help significantly in this.
If it has to be done quickly, then you probably need biological or nuclear war and those are, not to put too fine a point on it, messy.
Three hundred sixty-six ping pong balls in a turning barrel.