How to save the planet: have fewer children?

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[Church256]

How about we all just kill ourselves. That'll cure the world of the crap we're doing to it.

 

[Synek]

Having lesser children is very dangerous when the world is still a very unstable condition.
(Many diffrent nation,cultures,beliefs,area of inhabitant places,technology and other things that causes human to behave hostile.)
It could cause the more "enviromental friendly team" become extremly outnumbered of a enemy force that haven`t one child law.
Another problem is that human genetic code isn`t very diverse and one child each parent would continue to shrink the genetic codes causing it to become in even worse condition.

If fewer children policy then it must be active on every nation to ensure no one gains nummeratic advadgent. And as far I know nations that have lower tech or are still growing doesn`t give a brown smelly thing about it because they doesn`t either under stand why or it doesn`t affect them (yet). Unless it forced upon them, but that will never happend because it seems that most of the world is afraid of conflicts.

Unfortualy human population control seems to be war. Since we have no natural predators and most animals that hunted us is now endangered.

Don`t worry, One way or another human population number will without doubt drop some day.
And you will most likely not think about the enviroment saving plans that day.

So Breed ON!! It`s 100 % death rate on all human species so they die eventually.

 

[Pacifist Chris]

I thought we were having less kids in the west. Population is aging due to better healthcare and couples choosing not to have children. As for the third world, yes, there has recently been a populaton explosion in africa and the like. But its not that simple, whilst more people would mean a larger strain on reasources, the fact is that (china and india exceptions) the countries with out of control birth rates or high populations are underdeveloped and do not use as much energy, so therefore create less pollution. take the UK for example, small country, small population, but produces around 1% of the world's CO2 emmissions (I think).

 

[E-mantheseeker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090803/sc_livescience/savetheplanethavefewerkids

I had just heard this on CNN recently. Personally, I think its barbaric and there are more efficient, if not less ugly, ways to get the same results; but I'm just one person. What are your thoughts?

How is it barbaric not to have children?

Am I missing the part where they have the kids but eat them before they grow, or something?

Anyway, I guess that means I'm savin' tha werld.

Yeah I don't see the barbaric nature in not having children either, I guess condoms are a step in the wrong direction and the pregnant teenagers in my state having children like crazy are ahead of the curve.

Seems we're both saving the world, we should create a league of some sort.

i'd join this league... do we get free jackets? superpowers?

Well with no kids you have the power to go wherever you want whenever you want without worrying about leaving a child on it's own, it's kind of a low level version of teleportation and without having to buy crap for a miniature version of yourself, you'll have more than enough money to buy whatever jacket you want. If our league wants to go to Vegas, we can just pool up the money we didn't spend on babies and just go!

...My god, I have become a spokesperson for not having a child.

 

[King of the N00bs]

A childbirth restriction law seems like a logical solution...but it would have to be for a limited amount of time. Otherwise our race would dwindle. Maybe 1 child per couple for 30 years? Of course it would only work if every nation agreed. That kinda sucks.

 

[crudus]

If this is barbaric then what is my idea of committing mass genocide to reduce our carbon emissions called? (don't lie to yourself, you know it would work)

Pah!
They would probably call you "radical" or "crazy."
They're just demonizing the cause!

It may be "radical" and "crazy" but so is eating babies during a famine to survive. I guess we can call it "plan B" if we need to.

 

[nicholaxxx]

-snip-

I didn't say to actually send everyone to Texas, I was just talking about how much space we as humans really take up.

I didn't say I was being serious, hence the '/retardation' after that comment :]

 

[Shoqiyqa]

I wasn't arguing that we should actually do it, I was just stating about how much room we actually take up. And what the hell does religion have to do with it?

Religion was just where I first encountered the argument that because we could all stand together in a really small circle we don't need to worry about the environment. How much room we take up and how much surface we need to sustain us aren't the same calculation. While Texas would actually give the current population a little over ten acres each, and in fact that ought to be plenty, there are issues like freshwater availability to consider.

Also we don't all like Country & Western.


...

have as much kids as you want!

Indeed, have as much kids as you want. Anyone wanting more, help yourself to another slice of kids. I got an extra tonne in specially, and there's plenty to go around. If you want less kids, you shouldn't have put so much kids on your plate in the first place.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/much
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/less
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fewer