eehhh.... There's not enough food and water for everyone. And that's just the tip of the Iceberg, there are a lot of problems related to the earth being over populated all ready.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Where does the planet have issues supporting the current number of people?
Poll
How many kids should a couple be allowed to have?
| Not more than 3 | 28% | 28% - 46 | ||||
| Not more than 2 | 35% | 35% - 57 | ||||
| Only 1 | 8% | 8% - 14 | ||||
| Other number (specify) | 26% | 26% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 159 | ||||||
First off you seem to not grasp the concept that no one is saying to do it right now. Secondly, you ignore the simple fact that there is a finite amount of space, and no amount of science is going to be able to make the Earth bigger, so regardless of how small the growth rate may be, it is growing.HITNRUNXX wrote:
What about it? At a 10+ year (I only went back and looked that far) we have stayed at around 1-1.25% population growth as a world... That means it would take at least SEVENTY years to double the population. Look at technology over the last 70 years and see what was invented, improved, and streamlined... You don't think in 70 years from now we will be any better off than we are now?Snorkelfarsan wrote:
^^^^^^CommieChipmunk wrote:
Personally I think its selfish to have hordes of kids. In this day and age we don't need to have 10 kids a couple to maintain the population. If we keep multiplying exponentially, all of this ignorant breeding will result in a global crisis. There is no question about it. This earth will not maintain a population of 20 or 30 billion people. And it's not too many generations away..
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ldBank.gif
What about that?
Don't worry, the next Pandemic will sort things out. It's how nature has been handling overpopulation throughout time.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Secondly, you ignore the simple fact that there is a finite amount of space, and no amount of science is going to be able to make the Earth bigger, so regardless of how small the growth rate may be, it is growing.
Or that cancer "cure" that works too good.
The original post says nowhere anything other than if it were to happen right now, so you are not grasping very well yourself... It doesn't say "In 50 years" it says "If your country would make a new law..." that implies now.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
First off you seem to not grasp the concept that no one is saying to do it right now. Secondly, you ignore the simple fact that there is a finite amount of space, and no amount of science is going to be able to make the Earth bigger, so regardless of how small the growth rate may be, it is growing.Snorkelfarsan in the original post wrote:
So if your country would make a new law restricting couples to having only a specified number of children, such 1, 2 or 3. What amount do you think is appropriate? And what would be the procedure if someone exceeded this amount of children? What if you get twins and only 1 is allowed?
As has been mentioned MANY times throughout this thread, Space colonization nullifies the limited space on Earth.
Really? So no food or water is wasted? Interesting. Orrrrr, as I have said before, fix the real problems, don't just delay them... Stop wasting food, and do a better job providing the extra food to the third world nations... Create a food substitute... Distribute multi vitamins. Fix healthcare...Snorkelfarsan wrote:
eehhh.... There's not enough food and water for everyone. And that's just the tip of the Iceberg, there are a lot of problems related to the earth being over populated all ready.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Where does the planet have issues supporting the current number of people?
Everytime I turn on my faucet, water comes out just fine. Everyone on my street waters their yard throughout Spring and Summer... There are hundreds of bottles of water in any grocery store I walk into... So again, as I have said before, maybe the problem is not the population, but the management... If one of these water bottling companies could turn a buck in a 3rd world nation they would have all the water they could ever need... There just isn't any profit in us giving it to them.
No it doesn't. It says nothing about right now.HITNRUNXX wrote:
The original post says nowhere anything other than if it were to happen right now, so you are not grasping very well yourself... It doesn't say "In 50 years" it says "If your country would make a new law..." that implies now.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
First off you seem to not grasp the concept that no one is saying to do it right now. Secondly, you ignore the simple fact that there is a finite amount of space, and no amount of science is going to be able to make the Earth bigger, so regardless of how small the growth rate may be, it is growing.Snorkelfarsan in the original post wrote:
So if your country would make a new law restricting couples to having only a specified number of children, such 1, 2 or 3. What amount do you think is appropriate? And what would be the procedure if someone exceeded this amount of children? What if you get twins and only 1 is allowed?
As has been mentioned MANY times throughout this thread, Space colonization nullifies the limited space on Earth.
To be perfectly honest, there's more than enough space on this planet (for people). Problem would be food production. We could use space colonies sheerly for huge amounts of food production. We don't have enough room for animals & large corn fieldsAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No it doesn't. It says nothing about right now.HITNRUNXX wrote:
The original post says nowhere anything other than if it were to happen right now, so you are not grasping very well yourself... It doesn't say "In 50 years" it says "If your country would make a new law..." that implies now.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
First off you seem to not grasp the concept that no one is saying to do it right now. Secondly, you ignore the simple fact that there is a finite amount of space, and no amount of science is going to be able to make the Earth bigger, so regardless of how small the growth rate may be, it is growing.
As has been mentioned MANY times throughout this thread, Space colonization nullifies the limited space on Earth.
Last edited by dayarath (2008-01-23 14:01:01)
inane little opines
what he saidMarinejuana wrote:
what a nazi poll. are u kidding?
gtfo of our lives, facist.
I didn't say it says right now. I said it IMPLIES now... And it does... This whole post has been about us doing this now to "SAVE THE FUTURE" because apparently it we don't do it now, it will be too late... Catch up on 6 pages of reading and then throw your opinions in...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No it doesn't. It says nothing about right now.HITNRUNXX wrote:
The original post says nowhere anything other than if it were to happen right now, so you are not grasping very well yourself... It doesn't say "In 50 years" it says "If your country would make a new law..." that implies now.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
First off you seem to not grasp the concept that no one is saying to do it right now. Secondly, you ignore the simple fact that there is a finite amount of space, and no amount of science is going to be able to make the Earth bigger, so regardless of how small the growth rate may be, it is growing.
As has been mentioned MANY times throughout this thread, Space colonization nullifies the limited space on Earth.
You obviously haven't been to a third world country. Bottled water and water stores are all the rage in the third world as they are here in the States.HITNRUNXX wrote:
If one of these water bottling companies could turn a buck in a 3rd world nation they would have all the water they could ever need... There just isn't any profit in us giving it to them.
That is true... I meant if they weren't needing to make money off it then they could give it all away... It is there just not being distributed properly...Ilocano wrote:
You obviously haven't been to a third world country. Bottled water and water stores are all the rage in the third world as they are here in the States.HITNRUNXX wrote:
If one of these water bottling companies could turn a buck in a 3rd world nation they would have all the water they could ever need... There just isn't any profit in us giving it to them.
I've read it, and have been posting through pretty much the entire thing. I know what it says, and you are assuming...and we know what that does, now don't we.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I didn't say it says right now. I said it IMPLIES now... And it does... This whole post has been about us doing this now to "SAVE THE FUTURE" because apparently it we don't do it now, it will be too late... Catch up on 6 pages of reading and then throw your opinions in...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No it doesn't. It says nothing about right now.HITNRUNXX wrote:
The original post says nowhere anything other than if it were to happen right now, so you are not grasping very well yourself... It doesn't say "In 50 years" it says "If your country would make a new law..." that implies now.
As has been mentioned MANY times throughout this thread, Space colonization nullifies the limited space on Earth.
Again, it implies it. It never says anything to indicate years and years from now. It is speaking of my country and my government, and those are right now. If you are implying you know how you would feel 100 years from now, then you are the "ass" in assume, as no one does. We could have a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and make this a moot point. We can only comment on the information we were given, and that is in the present tense. If you want to know how I would feel about it under DIFFERENT circumstances, then that has to be stated. If you want to know how I would feel if it were 100 years later and the population has quadrupled and then half these imaginary problems actually exist, without any scientific progress, THEN the whole thread would be different.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I've read it, and have been posting through pretty much the entire thing. I know what it says, and you are assuming...and we know what that does, now don't we.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I didn't say it says right now. I said it IMPLIES now... And it does... This whole post has been about us doing this now to "SAVE THE FUTURE" because apparently it we don't do it now, it will be too late... Catch up on 6 pages of reading and then throw your opinions in...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No it doesn't. It says nothing about right now.
But it doesn't. It is now. The end. Have a nice day.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. The OP and the discussion has been centered on what should (or should not) be done now.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Again, it implies it. It never says anything to indicate years and years from now. It is speaking of my country and my government, and those are right now. If you are implying you know how you would feel 100 years from now, then you are the "ass" in assume, as no one does. We could have a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and make this a moot point. We can only comment on the information we were given, and that is in the present tense. If you want to know how I would feel about it under DIFFERENT circumstances, then that has to be stated. If you want to know how I would feel if it were 100 years later and the population has quadrupled and then half these imaginary problems actually exist, without any scientific progress, THEN the whole thread would be different.
But it doesn't. It is now. The end. Have a nice day.
Which in some countries may not be a bad thing.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I said no more than 3. You need two just hold a steady population. With only one you would have declining population, which in some areas may not be a bad thing.
SenorToenails wrote:
That's pretty much what I was thinking. The OP and the discussion has been centered on what should (or should not) be done now.
Yeah, I actually think that last statement in the OP hammers it home... If I am supposed to comment on the government deciding how many kids I get to have, and I am already an adult with kids, then obviously that forces the issue to now... I don't plan on having kids in the year 2100...Snorkelfarsan in the original post wrote:
How about you guys, would you mind the government deciding how many kids you get to have?
So you don't like the government deciding on how many kids you are allowed to have, which is understandable. But the issue still remains. And even if overpopulation is not a big problem now or not a problem for us in the western world. It will be a problem in 50 years. When the earths population has possibly doubled. Why do we have to have a population of 12 Billions people or more, isnt 6 billion enough allready? Aren't our problems big enough allready? Maybe the earth can sustain 20 or 30 billions people if we learn to manage our supplies better or remove parts of the population by colonizing space. But why even go there, why even go that far when we can stop population growth right now. And make it so much easier for everyone.
BTW, what is the problem with annual growth nearly halting or halting alltogether? None, as far as I can see.
BTW, what is the problem with annual growth nearly halting or halting alltogether? None, as far as I can see.
If annual growth stops on its own, then great. Awesome. I have no problems with that. I don't want somebody telling me how many kids I can/can't have.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
So you don't like the government deciding on how many kids you are allowed to have, which is understandable. But the issue still remains. And even if overpopulation is not a big problem now or not a problem for us in the western world. It will be a problem in 50 years. When the earths population has possibly doubled. Why do we have to have a population of 12 Billions people or more, isnt 6 billion enough allready? Aren't our problems big enough allready? Maybe the earth can sustain 20 or 30 billions people if we learn to manage our supplies better or remove parts of the population by colonizing space. But why even go there, why even go that far when we can stop population growth right now. And make it so much easier for everyone.
BTW, what is the problem with annual growth nearly halting or halting alltogether? None, as far as I can see.
We don't know how many people the Earth can efficiently sustain. There is no point in trying to fix a non-problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But if it's going to be 'broke' in the future, what should we do? Nothing..?SenorToenails wrote:
If annual growth stops on its own, then great. Awesome. I have no problems with that. I don't want somebody telling me how many kids I can/can't have.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
So you don't like the government deciding on how many kids you are allowed to have, which is understandable. But the issue still remains. And even if overpopulation is not a big problem now or not a problem for us in the western world. It will be a problem in 50 years. When the earths population has possibly doubled. Why do we have to have a population of 12 Billions people or more, isnt 6 billion enough allready? Aren't our problems big enough allready? Maybe the earth can sustain 20 or 30 billions people if we learn to manage our supplies better or remove parts of the population by colonizing space. But why even go there, why even go that far when we can stop population growth right now. And make it so much easier for everyone.
BTW, what is the problem with annual growth nearly halting or halting alltogether? None, as far as I can see.
We don't know how many people the Earth can efficiently sustain. There is no point in trying to fix a non-problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7124
Fuck this crap. Why should the folks in government have the power to limit/take human life? What makes them so special and above us all? I'm prepared to hole up in the wilderness and become a crazy mountain man who lives with the trees. Have as many children as you want friends; it's your semen; their your eggs! Not the mans! Viva la revolucion!
Last edited by Superior Mind (2008-01-23 19:16:31)
And a conflicting view: If it is broke, then DO fix it... But don't mislabel it, misrepresent it, and mispackage it as the wrong problem... Population is not the problem. Every "problem" brought up here has a separate answer. And virtually none of those problems will be "fixed" by reducing the population... Just like I said with oil... Even if we cut the population in half right now, then as long as nothing else changes, we are still dependent on oil and it will still EVENTUALLY run out. That is not FIXING anything, merely postponing it. The Earth will never get any smaller. Do you think if a country has half as many people it automatically fixes anything?SenorToenails wrote:
If annual growth stops on its own, then great. Awesome. I have no problems with that. I don't want somebody telling me how many kids I can/can't have.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
So you don't like the government deciding on how many kids you are allowed to have, which is understandable. But the issue still remains. And even if overpopulation is not a big problem now or not a problem for us in the western world. It will be a problem in 50 years. When the earths population has possibly doubled. Why do we have to have a population of 12 Billions people or more, isnt 6 billion enough allready? Aren't our problems big enough allready? Maybe the earth can sustain 20 or 30 billions people if we learn to manage our supplies better or remove parts of the population by colonizing space. But why even go there, why even go that far when we can stop population growth right now. And make it so much easier for everyone.
BTW, what is the problem with annual growth nearly halting or halting alltogether? None, as far as I can see.
We don't know how many people the Earth can efficiently sustain. There is no point in trying to fix a non-problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Wasted resources? Do you think they will destroy half the roads in America, just because there are half the people? No... it would end up taking MORE resources to maintain them all and keep them all up... Will they need less phone lines? Electrical lines? Any of thousands of different resource based items? No. It is too late for that. We are already spread out.
The most you can do by merely reducing the population is postpone the problems... It would be like a great doctor being days away from a cure for cancer, only to find out he has it himself. Instead of finishing his cure, he freezes himself, to be unfrozen when someone ELSE has cured cancer, so he doesn't have to live with it... The problems aren't going away, we are just wishing them off onto other people.
I would rather have my 3 kids study hard and possibly contribute something important to the world, rather than any of them to not exist at all and simply hope for the best...
And dude, for real, you are an incredibly intelligent young man. I honestly believe that. But in this, I feel like you are a smart missile locked onto the wrong target... You are one of the guys that are going to MAKE the future... Just look into fixing the right problems and not taking what initially may sound like the easiest route. I honestly believe that is in your capability.CommieChipmunk wrote:
But if it's going to be 'broke' in the future, what should we do? Nothing..?
I am not trying to say "Ignore the problem...it'll go away", but I am saying that it is not a problem here and now. If it becomes one in 100 years, then like HITNRUNXX says, solve it some other way.CommieChipmunk wrote:
But if it's going to be 'broke' in the future, what should we do? Nothing..?
Genetically engineered food tbh.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|7124
Yep. People just need to get over holy books first and start to survive.HurricaИe wrote:
Genetically engineered food tbh.