6 billion and counting

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sly1, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

    How many people can the earth tolerate and for how long?

    Also for fun lets assume the world could tolerate 500,000,000 people comfortably and exist in balance with nature......

    killing off 90% of the worlds population to secure the future of the human race and the planet earth........

    what would you consider the "right" thing to do?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. USS Exeter unamerican american Registered Senior Member

    Well, at the rate that we are reproducing, in 1,000 generations from now there should be 1 human every sq. meter on the earth's land. YAY!!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    We will never get to that point.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Killing off people to secure the future of the human race and/or nature is unethical (understatement).
    But if you think about it, people will eventually kill each other off. This will probably happen at some point after nature has been destroyed beyond restoration and recognition.
    The question is, what is more unethical. Killing off people now and safe the planet (for a while at least) or letting people kill of each other at which point the planet will be utterly destroyed.
    I don't know.. humans suck..
    Maybe NASA can help ?
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member


    Educating people on birth control techniques and sterilization are but 2 ways

    to help reduce human infestation.
  9. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    And people are worried about the decrease of the population due to gay people. Seems to me that that is exactly what this planet needs.
  10. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    This indeed is a very tough question but a very legit one at that.
    Think global warming is a big issue? Global warming is only a side effect of the big issue which is the population of the planet and the consumption/destruction of its resources.

    My curiousity questions if this issue has crossed the desks of washington and other governments ie: (China, India)....Im almost positive it has.....in which case we should all greatly be concerned with how they answered the OP question I posed......
  11. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    There is still a food surplus, so yes we will keep multiplying. Like an other animal.
  12. Exhumed Self ******. Registered Senior Member

    That's how I feel.

    I think the ethical thing to do is to stop reproducing. One child per two people. No one dies intentionally or unintentionally. People will never accept it worldwide though. I guess we will leave it to economics.
  13. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Or atleat try too.
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    You are right. People, or governments for that matter, will never accept it.
  15. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member


    how would you enforce "reproduction caps"? Especially in countries where they can barely enfore simple laws.

    So much of our effort is to preserve human life already on the planet.......laws, medecine, science......etc all to preserve and protect and even lengthen the life span of humans......considering this normality of human nature........

    can population decrease quick enough naturaly so as not to destroy the planet and thus everything on it and bring nature back into balance??

    for now......maybe.....but with global warming worsening and the weather being overdramatic in almost every fashion and no improvement any time soon.......wonder how long before that food surplus turns into a drought......dont forget water as well.
  16. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps the West should lead by example and put measures in place to ensure that we don't reach a point where the human population is out of control?
    Seems to me like a problem that we hope our great grandchildren will solve.
  17. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    I dont think this is an issue that can be solved ethicly and practicly.......

    Laws, etc, wont sway a persons natural desire to reproduce......I would bet the majority of people would fight those laws or just flat out ignore them. It would be hard to get the public at large to accept such laws in the first place.

    The only practical way to reduce the worlds population seems to be an unethical one, ie: mass sterilization, genocide, disease, etc.......that is what makes my skin crawl about the subject........
  18. q0101 Registered Senior Member

    Save the planet. I usually laugh when I hear people say that. We could detonate all of our nuclear bombs at once and the planet would be just fine. Watch this George Carlin video.

    I believe that overpopulation is a serious problem, but there are many people that believe it is only a problem in some large cities around the world, and there is more than enough space and resources on this planet for 6.6 billion people. These people are people are not thinking about the fact that there are some places where human beings should not be living. They are also not thinking about the increased competition for the limited number of resources on this planet. The increased competition can only lead to more negative things like poverty, starvation, and wars.

    I would support the idea of governments limiting the number of children that a woman can have. Bringing a child into this world should be a privilege, not a right. I also believe that people should be required to possess a license to be a parent. We require people to carry licenses to drive vehicles. I don’t see why people shouldn’t have to posses a license to be a child’s guardian. Being a parent is probably the most difficult job in the world. It is definitely more difficult than driving a motor vehicle. Anyone that wanted to obtain a license should have to pass a test that would measure their intelligence. They should also have to prove that they can afford all of things that a child will need. (Food, clothing, shelter, medical care)

    I don’t know what this world is going to look like 100 years from now, but I believe that there is a high probability that a reign of humanity will come to an end in the near future unless we are willing to change the way we think and live. Overpopulation may be a problem now, but I can image several scenarios where the human population could be reduced by 50% – 100% by the year 2100. The population reduction could occur because of nuclear and biological weapons. It could occur because of climate change. And then there is the worst case scenario that would involve a large asteroid hitting the earth.

    I truly believe that technologies like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology is the only thing that can save our species. We have to create a new race of humans that will guide us into the future. Human beings are emotional self-destructive creatures. We have to evolve into a species that is guided by logic and probability. It is my hope that genetic engineering and artificial intelligence will give rise to a new race of enhanced humans some time during this century. This new race should eventually become the new ruling class. These people would not be encumbered by genetic flaws that make life more difficult that it has to be for all of us.
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    depends on what artificial standard of mod con life we insist be standardized on the globe
  20. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    Seems to be a major conflict of interest concerning this issue.

    The origional idea behind the "free world" was freedom over security.......it seems that today it has reversed itself to security over freedom.

    Considering that shift in interest I would think depopulation in name of security of future of human beings and earth.....would be the winning idea.

    As far as there being enough resources for 6+ billion people on the planet......that may be true for now. But for how long? Surely with less people the resources will last much longer........

    Not to mention Global Warming has a dominoe effect on some of the planets most vital resources.....like fresh water.....and grown foods. With the destruction of the rain forest which is a major resource for the air we breathe......it will only worsen the effects of the current CO2 problem........
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Huh!? How naive... :bugeye:
    Any road (lol), I never meant nukes, humankind will destroy nature on this planet eventually by overpopulation. Forests will be cut down to build more houses, polution will increase, overfishing etc. etc.
    To say everything will be alright is just naive and maybe a bit ignorant..
  22. ranthi Registered Member

    population control through regulated reproduction is only a temporary solution. you could never balance out births vs deaths to obtain any sort of equilibrium. life usually attends to itself so to speak. imagine, as someone said, that there IS 1 human per 1 square meter...life could not sustain itself in such an environment. There would be disease..pestilence..starvation..murder..etc. That is your population control.

    The only reasonable solution is to look off planet for the answer. I think we will be capable of making something like that happen long before population really becomes a problem.
  23. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    highly doubtfull.......as population really is a problem right now, and you can see proof through global warming and the amazon rain forest.

    the rain forest will have been completely destroyed long before man will ever find a way to tera-form a planet and commute masses to live there. Even if tera-forming a planet were possible today it will still take too long for that planet to reach a livable enviornment.

Share This Page