|
I agree population is too high, but there will never be a well accepted/humane way to control it |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think we should kill anybody with a IQ lower than 120. This would cause a huge pop decrease which
would allow humans to support themselves more healthily. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In nature, animals let the weak ones die, both the old and infirm or infants that are runts of
litters. Humans have stopped doing that and combined with the lack of a natural predator, the
result is overpopulation. Unfortunately, the wilfully blind and those ignorant of the facts about
overpopulation will call even the discussion of the facts "monstrous" and "a call for genocide".
The simple and brutal truth is, massive die-offs of 3-4 billion human beings is going to happen, the
only question is how - starvation, war, disease, or a combination of them?
The only way the current use of natural resources and technological expansion could be maintained is
by the death of approximately 90% of the world's population. Peak oil has been reached
(US$250 per barrel is coming by 2011) and food supplies are running short; most food
fertilizers are made from oil-based products. We can choose to prepare for the shock to
come, or we can ignore it and nations around the world implode socially when reality comes crashing
down.
If we haven't killed each other with nuclear or biological weapons in fighting wars over resources,
and if nature doesn't spring a disease on us that kills billions, then in 50 years all nations will
return to agrarian societies, with smaller regional nations, 6-10 in Canada/US/Mexico alone. We're
going to be nations of farming with little international travel, just as we were before the
industrial revolution. The only difference is, we'll have solar powered computers and dangerous
levels of pollution. |
| |
 K9  14 Jun 2008 06:55
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I read that in 400 years, if the population grows at this rate, we will be expanding out of the
Earth at the speed of light. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are WAY too many people on this Earth.
And its growing.
We need to be educated about the consequence of having anymore than 2 children, because the Earth's
raw materials can not support this astounding population. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The population IS way too high. We should definitely do something about it, starting at limiting the
number of kids people have. There are also less human ways, but few people want to do it that way. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The population is far too high and increasing exponentially. It is already putting a strain on
natural resources, and with time that is bound to increase. There is an immediate and urgent need to
control the population increase. This is particularly so in the Third World countries, where the
population explosion is a real problem. There, due to lack of education, and certain ingrained
beliefs, the population count is spiralling out of control. Steps may be taken to educate the
populace about the disadvantages of having large families, and to eradicate traditional beliefs. On
a political level incentive programs may be introduced to keep the number of children per family
down. However, in some places, this may go against the religious beliefs of certain communities. In
any case, stronger measures than that cannot be introduced as they would probably interfere with the
fundamental rights of the people. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yeah damn straight. I mean how many ginger people do we really need in this country. Send them all
back!!! I can actually feel them sucking up MY air, using my petrol, and buying up all the
f--ckin sunblock. We could burn them in a furnace to generate electricity. Or at least have them
running on little wheels. And the fat people too, feed em buckets of chips till they burst and die,
leave us more space on the bus. We could really do with less women too. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
With the increasing threats of deforestation, overfishing in the seas, and global warming, I
find it easy to draw the conclusion that the Earth and its populations cannot support our human
populations, or the prospected populations for the year 2050 and beyond, and thus, our populations
need to be reduced and restricted. If we do not manage our numbers, resources such as forest and
fish will be eradicated, and our effects on the climate will become increasingly disastrous.
To stall or even solve the problems of an excessive population of humans, I believe we need to
globally limit the number of offspring a single family can have to no more than one. This way we can
reduce our numbers to a comfortable level for both us and the earth. Once we have reached an
adequate population size, families should then be allowed to have no more than two children, so then
for every two deaths there would be two births; a healthy balance. With the population level
maintained, there should be a decrease in negative effects on the earth, and so the problem would be
solved. If people did not comply with the limitations then a drastic eradication would be necessary
to enforce the limits, meaning if a family disobeyed and had more children than allowed, then their
“extra” children would be eliminated at birth or sooner, and the parents would be fined or
jailed. I believe that a restricted population size is a necessity that needs to be implemented
immediately. Some might think it immoral, but compared to the immorality of our destruction of the
earth, it is nothing. If we do not restrict our populations, then the earth and all of its
inhabitants will surely suffer, thanks to our stupidity.
Children of parents, who were imprisoned would not become "extra" since they were not born
illegally. They would have to go under the care of somebody else until their parents finished their
time in jail. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
