Ways to deal with overpopulation

Recommended Videos

let's rock

New member
Jun 15, 2011
372
0
0
I think that a serious answer would be things like propanganda to encourage couples to only have 1 child
 

Hunter15

New member
Jan 12, 2011
260
0
0
i think what we should do what yatzee said in his Black Ops review. lets just have another War....thats will probably cut down the population.....especially if its Total war like in WW1
 

kommando367

New member
Oct 9, 2008
1,956
0
0
Gladiatorial fights to death and limiting the amount of kids people can have (but leave alone the people that already have an amount of kids over the limit). That's how you fix it.
 

Coruptin

Inaction Master
Jul 9, 2009
258
0
0
No, you're all wrong. We need to start eating babies. Stave off population increase and feed the hungry at the same time, it's win-win situation.
 

DanDanikov

New member
Dec 28, 2008
185
0
0
We can solve the current problems in exchange for future ones. Maybe 18 billion is the hard limit for the planet and we have to think about it then, but it will be a problem sooner or later.

The real issue is the inherent human right to procreate repeatedly. It's a simple case of the amount of people willing and able to procreate doing so at a rate that is in excess of the amount of people dying. That's how growth works.

I plan on living forever, if I can manage it, but I'd expect a valid cost of that would be not having kids unless I could prove there was space for the child forever. I wonder how many parents would be having nearly as many children if they had that in mind.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Develop as soon as possible ways to colonise planets. IF situation on earth will get really hairy and colonisation is still not available, implement reproduction restriction laws + deny poor class to reproduce, implement mandatory death at 65-70 (if overpopulation is really heavy). Implement food restriction laws, and if all this fails at human race faces real danger then begin population reduction program ie kill poor with IQ less than some degree,old (startin at 65-70) and invalids.
 

Sjakie

New member
Feb 17, 2010
955
0
0
Take the safety label off EVERYTHING.
All the Darwin-awards will stop breeding and start dieing soon after that.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
There's only one way to fix this problem.


A worldwide Smash Bros Brawl tournament (Metaknight is banned).

The losers don't get to breed.

No need to thank me, the Nobel Prize is enough.
Genius! And when I Falcon Punch my combatant to their doom, they will feel that they deserve to die.

Also, assuming Frankie Boyle's vision of cities on Hydraulic Legs becomes true, we let the most populous cites fight to the death and the surviving city keeps it's place. Also recommended, and environmentally friendly, is strangling your babies with plastic bags.

Now just in cause anyone thinks I'm being wholly serious, I do not condone the strangling of babies. Although I would like to see the hydraulic legs idea come to life.
 

Fleischer

New member
Jan 8, 2011
218
0
0
The major issue isn't feeding billions of people; the largest problem will be with providing them with energy and other limited goods. Potable water will be a problem, until a few billion is spent worldwide. The fact is the majority of the world doesn't live the high consumption lifestyle myself and many other Westerners enjoy. If they did, the world would see a huge spike in commodities and the price of energy/oil/electricity would skyrocket.

Coruptin said:
No, you're all wrong. We need to start eating babies. Stave off population increase and feed the hungry at the same time, it's win-win situation.
You are making Johnathan Swift smile.
 

NezumiiroKitsune

New member
Mar 29, 2008
979
0
0
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...

But anyway. There's still more than enough food and space to go around, so I don't see what the problem is.
Because long scale is archaic and obsolete, and short scale has been the official usage for almost 40 years now. I've lived in the UK my entire life, and I have never recognised one million million as a billion.

Lots of ways. Colonisation of Mars, space colony ships, the disestablishment of countires leading to a unified single humanity, which is well regulated in controlling birth numbers humanely. We do need to think about it though, I agree. If we could start a controlled population descent for a few years, that'd be really beneficial to humanity.

There are other ways obviously, but I'd not endorse them. Whether that would matter depends a lot of my future and the future of the governments of the world. Disease too, could do it.
 

Woodscare

of Awesometon
Sep 18, 2009
360
0
0
For me, making it mandatory for everyone to have a maximum of 1 child. The punishment for having a second is not to kill the child as it is not their fault they were born but to kill a parent. The remaining parent will recieve help with the second child. It sounds very harsh but it will benefit everyone in the end.
 

Sprinal

New member
Jan 27, 2010
534
0
0
Lukeje said:
I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
Its not just America...
We use it down under too...

OT:

In previous eras when this was also a problem it was sorted out through war, famine and the black death or simpliy emigrating someplace else. Now with Earth full we can still go someplace else... Just get someone to invest.