Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Syzygys, Mar 7, 2009.
no e-coli worries?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Oh, yeah, read the OP ....thousands of kids die per day of shit-borne illnesses, etc. Only the kids that are strong enough to survive the e-coli problems live past childhood in India.
In Vietnam, when the Viet Cong learned of the disease problems for American soldiers, they used to put out punji sticks (sharpened bamboo stuck in the dirt) with human shit rubbed all over the sharp points. Soldiers would step or fall on those sticks, it was instant disease!!
Okay. I would have imagined that the answer would have been obvious to anyone.. except you it seems.
American Indians had more space to move around in. Indian cities are over-crowded. Do you expect whole cities to move every so often because of sanitation? You are comparing tribal existence in wide open spaces where land was in abundance to over-populated cities where poverty is rife. Hmmm yeah.. there's a connection there... hmm.. nope.. can't even compare the two.
I would rather not. Am just about to go and have lunch.
The problem there is that there is nowhere to put all the human waste products. There is no sanitation. It's the same in just about every single 3rd world country you can visit. I remember my first ever trip to Bali in my late teens and feeling a bit surprised when on the drive to the hotel from the airport, there was a guy squatting with his backside going into a canal/creek with a roll of toilet paper in his hand and his pants down.. This was in the country of course and things such as toilets were deemed to be a luxury. I was disgusted when about 100m down the road, a family were bathing in the same canal/creek.
How can I put this.. if they had toilets they would use them and if the Government spent the money on sanitation plants, it would be even better. Then they too could put huge pipes going out into the ocean and dumping it all there like most other civilised countries do.. Out of sight, out of mind.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
so cant they institute population control?
of course it is true that it is not fair to pick on one area for this.
Forced abortions and sterilisations? One child policy? Cull the current population? Close the roads to the cities and stop anyone else from coming in?
So to you it is more ethical to force women to have abortions if they have one too many children, murder others (as in cull the population), force sterilisations upon the population and shut down the city to all incoming traffic.. than to build some sanitation plants and providing some forms of public toilets?
but you think that something needs to be done?
do you have an answer? and shouldnt they realize that there are too many people?
i suppose that being old civilizations is the reason why there are so many people. do you think that is it?
After they get a few million more of ouuurrr JERBS, they will be fine. They will be able to create all kinds of new economies and micro economies and having kids will be too expensive just like it is for "civilized" nations.
perhaps life began in india and china simultaneously and branched out from there.
one child per family seems like a reasonable solution when the population gets over a trillion.
http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/4434826/11888129 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think they know there are too many people, especially in the urban areas where people from the country go to try to seek out a better living for their families. But how do you stop it? Or slow it down?
There is no ethical solution to population control. You can either enforce a number of allotted child policy, akin to China's 1 child policy or you start culling the current population (murdering vast quantities of the people). But there you run the risk of forced abortions and killing off newborns where parents have fallen pregnant after having the number of children they are allowed to have.
Or, alternatively, you start to develop a sanitation service, educate the whole populace about contraception and allow safe forms of contraception to be made freely or cheaply available to everyone and allow each individual to make the choice for themselves.
Why not release a virus which renders humans infertile?
Hardly ethical, now is it?
Overpopulation would lead to far more suffering for both humans and the Earth than an infertility virus would.
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
By risking no more growth in the population? As in zero population growth everywhere? I say everywhere because viruses have a way of spreading?
Alternatively they could just build sanitation plants and provide sanitation services and educate the population. But your way seems so much better.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, just imagine. A world with no humans! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The only fly in the ointment is that a small proportion of humans would probably demonstrate resistance.
Yeah, it does. It's cheaper and more effective.
can they use it as a fuel source?
Separate names with a comma.