The Final Solution

Okay. Let's be clear about one thing. This is not a blueprint or even manifesto. It's just a suggestion, or rather a group of suggested priorities and criteria which might be useful in determining the human population of our beleaguered planet. It is a consideration of some of the implications of the idea that we would be a lot more comfortable with four billion fewer people. The practical details – plague, nukes, geoclimatic disasters, etc – of how this could come about i leave to __________ (your deity here). The selection details of who actually should live or die, as a class or type are of more interest to me. (My suggestions to your deity). 

General Principles:
1) Criteria should not define or specify any particular racial, religious, national, cultural or other social classification, in order to prevent excesses of gross unconsciousness that have marred other final solutions, eugenic or otherwise. This highly useful generalization notwithstanding, criteria may well include generalized descriptions which pertain to some groups more than others.
2) To minimize the suffering that will inevitably ensue among survivors – never mind non-survivors – it would be best if dependents of those selected to be terminated were also terminated.
3) As every country is to some extent overcrowded, every country should contribute.

The Criteria (whose order is not to be construed as a priority):
1) Poverty: This criterion reflects the fact that, as a generality, poor people have more children and live in more crowded conditions, and so will have a more direct and immediate effect on the degradation of the environment. As well, if there are, say, three billion fewer of them, they will be unable to the dirty work for the capitalist exploiters. (We'll get to them soon enough). It is also true that, especially now in the age of global communication – if we can be so bold as to call TV that – these guys would be big-league exploiters if they could, because they've seen "the good life" on TV and they want a piece of it. This is most applicable in the case of the miserable poor (see 6), who are more greedy to "better" their lot, although it can certainly be argued that the happy poor is an oxymoron. This brings us straight to:

2) Greed: The constant need to have and consume more (blah blah etc psychological analysis) is the other side of the "North-South" debate. Rich, mostly western über-consumers are consuming vastly more than their share of the earth's resources and their impact on the environment, etc, etc. Shoot 'em all!
As for the up-and-coming greedheads that aren't yet consuming vastly more than their share but would if only they had more $ £ ¥, let them be spared (how magnanimous of me!) but they can see what happens to the big guys and maybe learn something. . .

3) Intolerance: This is one i really have to be careful with, since if i inveigh too heavily against those who have no space for other points of view, other ways of life, i become one of them, then it's off to the big Kevorkian clinic for me. Still, i can't stand intolerance. And i can make a case for it being a big cause of the dire condition of the planet (DCOP): wars, exploitation, oppression, inquisitions, etc can obviously be blamed on other things like greed, but much of it is also ideologically inspired, and intolerance is the habit of mind that allows us to justify our excesses, against each other or the planet.

4) Sexism: This one is not going to be on many people's short lists of major contributors to the DCOP, still it is a big part of the dire state of our consciousness, which has to be the big underlying factor in all our ills. And it is pervasive, affecting all our interactions. It is not just about sexual repression, which as Osho notes, perverts and distorts our basic life energy. It is beyond the official classification systems – Biblical, Koranic, Talmudic, Hindu, etc – which relegate women to status that ranges from second-class to cattle. It is so deeply embedded in our collective consciousness that these oppressive theologies seem like recent superficial add-ons, for the "noble savage" has not treated women any better than these parvenu religions, and in many cases has treated them far worse.
I could go on and on, and do in Gender Wars. The point here is that while we all, men and women alike, are guilty of oppressing women, we all suffer from it, and as such, the misery (see 6) that enters our lives as a result leads us to do stupid things to the planet, our physical and spiritual sustenance. It may be an unconscious habit which dates back to the apes, if not further, but i single out its modern practitioners, particularly in the fundamentalist wings of "the great monotheistic religions": Christianity, Islam and Judaism, for particular opprobrium.
This is not to say that all members of these religions are party to this oppression, nor that there aren't others outside their groups who are just as bad, just there are tendencies. . . As a group
they are the ones doing the most to perpetuate these crimes against humanity, and by extension against the rest of the biosphere. I reckon this to be the most important of my criteria, if i have to choose.
The envelope, please. . . For your cynical – i hesitate to call it conscious – ugly machinations, i have to consider you the most deserving of eviction.

5) Fecundity: Self-evident: More people = more assholes per square inch = more stress and destruction. The people doing the most to encourage overpopulation would, if they hadn't already gotten it in (4) – strangely enough, they are the same people – deserve special mention.

6) Misery: The most difficult of the criteria to elucidate. One thing i have gotten from Osho is some understanding about how misery is something we invest in. It is not very intelligent, but there you go. And then we seem to want to share our misery, to lighten our burden. The more miserable people are, it seems, the more misery they inflict around themselves. So i have added it in here as sort of a universal, catchall kind of criterion.

So there you have it. I have "named names," to the limited extent of describing certain religious types, although i hope it is abundantly clear that the ones i specifically named are chosen for their destructive belief systems. It is not my intention to create an appeal to unconscious hates and angers and launch a pogrom, jihad or crusade against particular groups. My jeremiad is not about "us and them." It is about a tendency to create misery in ourselves and others which now, by the overwhelming force of our numbers, is threatening to destroy the lives and habitat of innocents: tigers, bears, marmots, not to mention moas, passenger pigeons and others for whom it is too late. It is hard to imagine a god who would be pleased with our stewardship here.

If enough people with these kinds of destructive characteristics are eliminated, we will do more than just reduce the sheer numbers of our disastrous species. We may even change the quality of how we relate to and affect the earth, not just the quantity. And this will help to maintain a balance of intelligence when (not if) the human population rises again.