The Over Population Problem

Which is, of course, a major part of the term "over-populated".

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The people who contribute the most to the world's population are those on the lowest economic levels. The more peoples' incomes rise in the developed or developing world, the smaller their families. Raise people from poverty, and you will go a very long way to solving the population problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the less impoverished they are, the more energy & materials they will use.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we should just kill a few people.

*sets my mutant Alsatian dogs loose*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, golly, then let's just steal money from the wealthy nations and air-drop it all over the poor nations ...problem solved. Well, solved until those original wealthy people begin to use their smarts and accumulate more wealth just like before ....while the poor continue to fuck and have babies and live in dire poverty.

A better solution is one similar to that VI suggested - killing people. But instead of being indiscriminate about it, let's just kill all the poor people, then the problem is definitely solved.

Baron Max

 

No Baron you old twit, some poor people are very much decent productive citizens, and some rich people are cunts who contribute nothing to humanity.

Kill the unworthy ones and keep the good people.

 

Yeah, and that's what we're trying to prevent ....production!

Baron Max

 

Unworthy of what ? And who decides on that ?

 

Hmmm...good question.

I've always liked the thought if a 'human decency test' which everyone must pass. Questions would include such things as 'Is it acceptable to judge someone by their skin colour?' or 'Is it acceptable to discriminate against someone for dressing a certain way?'

But I doubt you'd get people to answer honestly.

Best to just kill people indiscriminately, actually.

 

Yep, that wouldn't work

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hmm.. you're not serious right ?
How about birth restrictions ?

 

Hmm, might work. China did that I believe, and the people kept having babies until they had a boy ......and all the girl babies were killed and buried. Not a bad idea, but it's fraught with problems of ethics, not to mention who makes the decisions.

Nope, it's best just to kill people until you run out of bullets. And bullets can be manufactured at huge quantities.

Baron Max

 

No, killing people just seems like fun in the abstract.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yea, but I have a problem with that. Imagine the pollution..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, there won't be any pollution, we'll use bulldozers to bury the dead people quickly and efficiently. We can even use quick lime to prevent disease from percolating into the soil.

Pretty neat, huh? Some people get some good target practice while solving one of the world's major problems all at the same time.

Baron Max

 

I find it hard to believe people/nations will only use bullets in a world war like that.
The old nukes will probably be dusted off at the first hint of it.

If you really want to kill all (or most) people relatively clean, use a human specific virus.

 

Nice link: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/aftermath-population-zero-3225#tab-Overview

 

I have 4 fine sons and don't feel at all unethical- rather proud of it as it happens. for many people in the world children are their old- age pension. maybe AIDS is nature's way of controlling the population in many countries in Europe the birth rate's falling, some ethnic groups tend to breed more than others. I don't ever see a world rule about children per head/family, they try in china but it does not work and it is very unpopular. some say their is a genetic drive to perpetuate one's genes but not to homosexualists of course

 

Well Charles Brough, As I said in a earlier post I understand the concern for energy given the current meathod of generating energy... such as Oil, and Uranium. As for example There was only some 39,000 cubic miles of Uranium on our planet, that could be used for Nuclear energy. The bulk of this Uranium is subject to decay making mining and use time dependant. the bulk of this Uranium is also deposited in Random locations throughout the earth, which has a surface of some 197,660,000 square miles. Trying to find suffceint deposits that will provide energy for the next 100 or 200 years would seem difficult if the entire world was run on Nuclear energy.
For comparison there is copper which as you stressed is becoming sparse in suface mines, how ever the earth has large amounts of copper at some 26,000,000 cubic miles of copper, but yet thier is difficultly find Viable ores to mine at low cost. so then understanding the difference in volume between uranium and copper you can see that uranium will not be cost effective.
Even so the hopes of atomic nuclear science in basic study is to manipulate atomic chemisrty to make the atomic materials that you want, by effect of transmutation.

As Far as Hydrocarbon Deposits it may be that more hydrocarbon exist as coal and tarsands than has fluid oil. And other oil reserves ,those of Fluid oil may continue to become sparse and sparser at least those that are cost affordable. Sea floor exsploration may become very exspensive, and enviormentally unsound when recovering oil deposits. It does not seem as of current that Oil deposits from the deep sea will be abundant, except in certain areas. Even so the earths interior below the crust contains a carbon at 20% of the earths Volume, suggesting that huge Hydrocarbon reserves exist, but this may be stored has coal as well. the depth makes it non cost effective.

So I do Understand the concern for energy source for a growing population.

Not to worry though, there are plently of way to provide the energy, Many Old men have made break throughs in this area, leveling the current energy industry of oil and nuclear energy to the ground to be swept into the trash heap. But here in this issue of energy we are dealing with Goverments and big Buisness that have spent large sums of money to keep the inventions or Old men off the market, Big bussiness hampering the lives of scientist that easy humanities problems and doing so with the help of politicans and judges. This has happened world wide and it appears to happen because big buissness finds that not playing fairly is in thier benifit. They would seek to withhold such inventions so that they can design entire lines of products a head of and before other companies or even the inventors of the original products, Elimanating any free course of social development and demand that would exist naturally in a free market.

Some thing to think about,


DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

If you eliminate population, you have lower energy needs, less pollution, everything is better. Anyone know how to genetically engineer the superflu?

 

If you eliminate population, you have NO energy needs, NO pollution, everything just is.