Overpopulation
- Thread starter e2density
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In the 1st World, poeple have children when they DESIRE them, but in other places, its more because they NEED them. The highest birthrates anywhere are found after cataclysm or war significantly reduce the population. It is a natural instinct. There is also some evidence to suggest that the environment can affect the genders of these 'refill' babies.
Oppositely, some animals change gender, or even purposefully die, when their population overtakes their area's carrying capacity. Human's don't, but we do tend to have fewer children by instinctual choice.
How often do you hear poeple say that they are too busy to have kids, or perhaps they enjoy the single life too much to have them. Quite a few say that they would never want to 'bring children into a terrible world like this'. These are all attitudes of the First World. We can afford to live and die childless. In the 2nd World, but the 1st World especially, children are a matter of survival, and on top of that, child mortality can be incredibly high.
In the past, single plagues, eruptions and even meteors, would reduce human populations in significant ways. Nowadays, in the 1st World, what could possibly kill off millions of our number, except our own violent (or stupid) tendancies? Generally, those deaths are suffered by the 2nd and 3rd Worlds anyway.
So, declining birthrates will probably be a trend for developed countries, while developing countries will slowly catch up in terms of living conditions, but take a while to give up the 'baby making machine'. As always, most of the unprotected rumpy pumpy will be happening in parts of the world very few of us here would dare to tread.
Oppositely, some animals change gender, or even purposefully die, when their population overtakes their area's carrying capacity. Human's don't, but we do tend to have fewer children by instinctual choice.
How often do you hear poeple say that they are too busy to have kids, or perhaps they enjoy the single life too much to have them. Quite a few say that they would never want to 'bring children into a terrible world like this'. These are all attitudes of the First World. We can afford to live and die childless. In the 2nd World, but the 1st World especially, children are a matter of survival, and on top of that, child mortality can be incredibly high.
In the past, single plagues, eruptions and even meteors, would reduce human populations in significant ways. Nowadays, in the 1st World, what could possibly kill off millions of our number, except our own violent (or stupid) tendancies? Generally, those deaths are suffered by the 2nd and 3rd Worlds anyway.
So, declining birthrates will probably be a trend for developed countries, while developing countries will slowly catch up in terms of living conditions, but take a while to give up the 'baby making machine'. As always, most of the unprotected rumpy pumpy will be happening in parts of the world very few of us here would dare to tread.
i surgest we do this hitchikers guide to the galaxy style and get rid of anyone who does tertairy jobs( anything oher than designing, building obtaining materials for building.) we put them on a massive ship and tell them we are colonising another world, then fire them into the sun, or just out into space somewhere.
My own thoughts are that this particular picture gives me cause for hope. It does mean that through advancement and progress, the lives of people in general have improved. I am optimistic about the outcome though. I do believe that humans will find a way to cope with a rising population, GMO's are already advancing nicely, and with new discovers in genetic engineering we might find a way to make more food abundant crops. Though all of this would be speculation, but I do feel that there is hope in such a future (it might, however, mean a one child policy as would be the case in China), and that living to see it will be interesting indeed ^~^!
Doesn't work. You're left with a bunch of old people with a relatively small amount of young people supporting them. See Japan, Europe, and now more and more so, China.Souplex said:
The more educated you are usually the less children you have how many people right now in your neighbor/social circle/blah blah blah have more than 2 or 3 children. Most people I know that are 30 maybe have 1 kid. I can't think of anyone I personally know that has more than 3 kids. My Parents are 1 of 5 and 1 of 9 and that wasn't uncommon pre-1980s, you can basically see a downward trend in birth rates.
I think a reasonable 3-child limit or something would help a lot, especially in third-world countries in which it's common for starving parents to go ahead and make six or seven starving kids and then whine to us about their inability to make rational decisions.
This is by far one of the most interesting ideas I've read in this thread.soundoflights said:
The law of conservation of energy and Laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.thahat said:
If your talking about http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay.articles.powergenworldwide.nuclear.reactors.2010.02.uk-plans_500_mw_nuclear.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html its going to need a bit more fuel then you think it dose.
Someone made a lot of sense earlier, about the birth control thing.
shame making people fear unprotected set won't work, it can already kill you stone dead from having sex ONCE, yet doesn't even make people pause before sticking it in.
However, the 1 baby per couple worldwide, for 20 years, then repeated in 20 year periods as needed sounds sensible, if only we could get people to sign up.
I can't help but think in the third world, where (and here I'm going to put humanity aside for cold logic) people are reproducing when they can't even feed themselves in some areas, an offer of a certain amount of money to come in and have a vasectomy might be the answer, it's not a cold culling, it's not a blanket ban on stopping poor people from multiplying, but it's helping them out of poverty in two ways, by giving money, and preventing them from making more people who need feeding. This could be rolled out to the UK, US, and other countries by replacing 'small sum of money' with 'tax breaks', after all, didn't some study show that having a kid is worse for the environment than buying a Humvee and taking a big holiday every year, flying both ways?
Secondly, yes, 1 baby per family, if you want more, adopt or foster, there's millions of kids already out there who need a loving home, quit pretending your womb is some magical Narnia, or that your dick is some magic genius generator, people count more than individual organs.
shame making people fear unprotected set won't work, it can already kill you stone dead from having sex ONCE, yet doesn't even make people pause before sticking it in.
However, the 1 baby per couple worldwide, for 20 years, then repeated in 20 year periods as needed sounds sensible, if only we could get people to sign up.
I can't help but think in the third world, where (and here I'm going to put humanity aside for cold logic) people are reproducing when they can't even feed themselves in some areas, an offer of a certain amount of money to come in and have a vasectomy might be the answer, it's not a cold culling, it's not a blanket ban on stopping poor people from multiplying, but it's helping them out of poverty in two ways, by giving money, and preventing them from making more people who need feeding. This could be rolled out to the UK, US, and other countries by replacing 'small sum of money' with 'tax breaks', after all, didn't some study show that having a kid is worse for the environment than buying a Humvee and taking a big holiday every year, flying both ways?
Secondly, yes, 1 baby per family, if you want more, adopt or foster, there's millions of kids already out there who need a loving home, quit pretending your womb is some magical Narnia, or that your dick is some magic genius generator, people count more than individual organs.
noh the law of conservation of energy has no quarrel with me. id like you to step outside, and look UP. well, during the daytime at least.direkiller said:
say hello to the worlds biggest fusion reactor. the sun.
the trick is to not just shift an element from one for to another, but to convert its entire corporeal form into energy, the americans are ahead alread. by using some kind of rediculously cooled hydrogen attoms and way to much laserpower.
Disstraction for lesser minds? You mean like wagner or da vinci?? I have now assumed your taking the piss.Name99 said:
We have too many families who are having 4 or more kids. "Duh gee, my religion says I can't wear a condom, but I just can't stop f***ing. We have 8 kids & are living in near-poverty."