/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10136872
>the cabinet fucking shakes a little
I'm not satisfied. Does this shit work or not? The principle of oscillations getting progressively more intense makes sense to me, but I still don't know exactly what's stopping me from destroying large objects under that principle using such a tiny device.

So a topic only worthy of /sci/, I wondered if it was mathematically possible to overtake, or match the current birthrate-to-deathrate ratio with a concept.

>Every second, a random person dies on the earth, except you get to decide how finely targeted this randomness is.

Essentially, if you could kill one person every second at a time, what is the most efficient means of matching the incline?

Currently 4 people are born every second, and 2 die, so a net. increase of 2 every second; adding this power means changing that to 4 & 3, which still means a positive increase so no luck.

My buddies and I brainstormed and reckoned targeting just pregnant women might do the trick since you are increasing kills a second and reducing birth rate to 3 & 3.

Further fine tuning meant targeting the subsets of women pregnant with twins, with preference for those with triplets or even rarer higher births at once, first. Then afterwards reverting to single-child births.

Finally it was finetuned again to women pregnant with female babies, again with respect to above rules (say pregnant with female triplets ahead of pregnant with mixed triplets).

>Is this the end?
So if my math is right, eventually, one might be able to halt growth to such a degree, such that a massive gender imbalance occurs in the face of this phenomenon, and yet another war breaks out or something.
Any crisis which results in humans killing one another or dying of other causes en masse only helps us, our goal is to beat self-sustaining exponential pop. increase.

>tl:dr
target a very specific user-def demographic, one person every second dies. Earth-pop-increase stoppable?