Should the Planet be depopulated

reply to post by mentalempire

---

The other alternative is not an alternative, and it involves a masacre.
Other than that there is no real solution, we don't have the tec to migrate to other places, who knows maybe I'm wrong , maybe in 200 years from now they could teraform mars, it is clasified in the category of planets that could sustain life and it's not that far away, but beiond mars I doubt it.
Unless you want a masacre there is no other way to depopulate starting from now exept to aplly limitations to birth rates.
Seems the civil way to go.

reply to post by pepsi78

---

I just fail to see the crisis. After all, the UN issued a report that effectively no one's refuting that Earth could support about 50 billion people and that we're going to plateau off far short of that at 9.3 billion by 2300, I can provide the links if you like. Nevertheless, I'm new to this thread and don't know what others have posted.

It's simple they each have one kid, he gets old he dies and his wife dies too the kid stays , 2 go's 1 stay, it's simple, then the kid of your kid has 1 kid and a wife, his kid and his wife go's and his kid stays, again 2 go's 1 stay.
It's simple.
8 kids 8 wifes 8 kids 16 people die when they get old 8 stay.
There for people depopulate.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2007 by pepsi78]

Yes I stated there is no crisis now, but when the time comes such laws would help, but I don't think it the time is that far away, maybe not in our life time tho.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78

---

Why not have a laissez faire system? I mean it's already been demonstrated that there are no limits to growth in a properly developed economy.

reply to post by pepsi78

---

Are you kidding me? That's depopulation? You still started with 2 people and ended up with 8.

Wait! Edit!

You also assumed that the original 8 children won't be taught by their parents to ignore depopulation efforts, and have 5 or 6 or 10 or some outrageous number of children themselves.

It might seem far-fetched, but that's exactly what would happen in 3rd world nations. Industrialized nations would still see people ignoring the effort and having 2 or 3 children. At 2, there is no population decrease and at 3 there is an increase.

Why would people refuse to obey?
1. Religion - Both Islam and Christianity instruct people to reproduce. Some branches even oppose birth control!

2. Necessity - You'll have to read through the thread to figure that one out. Long story short, some peoples' ways of life require large families for survival.

3. Rebellion - Tell people they can't do something, and a large portion of them will do it just to be "bad."

4. Rights - Some people will argue that it is their right to reproduce. Without getting into a debate about what makes something a "right," we can still conclude that there are people in this world who will do whatever they feel they have a right to until they no longer have the ability to do so.

5. Politics - Whatever position one side takes up, another will oppose. Always.

6. Indifference - Self explanatory.

7. Nature - It's human nature to reproduce. People will do it until the end of humanity, whether you try to stop them or not. Always, Period, No Matter What.

Seven's a lucky number and I'm tired, so I'll stop there.

And for the record, a "crapload" is, among other things, however much verbal diahrea one can spew while advocating one of many steps into turning the earth into a militant dictatorship.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by mattifikation]

Not really, everything is like an ink cartrige, wears out and dies, that includes resuces, look at china, there are so many people, there are so many cars because people drive cars, I'm not talking about global warming, but I''m talking about polution, the air is so poluted there you can hardly take a breath.
Not only polution but when you go to an area less populated things are always cleaner, have you tried drinking water from the mountains? to see how clean it is you will drink out of the water sping your self with your bear hands, and of course how poluted lakes from populated areas are because people throw a bunch of garbige in them and of course not only that but the smog from the cars powerplants mix with the water.
We must have places that are less touched be people, that remain clean.

While you have clorine mixed in your tap water, there are places you can drink water directly from the lake with out puting anything in to clean it.

There is a big difrence betwen the eco sistem and the global warming theory, polution is a big plague, the more people the more polution you get, messing the eco sistem up will spell doom, and when I say eco system I'm not refering to global warming.




[edit on 9-11-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by mattifikation

---

Obviously there will be a penalty for such actions if birth was regulated by law. There'd be endless possibilities on the legal aspect of depopulation regulation.

You guys have honestly nothing to worry about because the world will depopulate itself. The baby boomer's are all either retiring or will retire in a few years. Then old age will kick in and start picking them off(no offense to baby boomer's). Baby boomer's are the majority, and considering how today's generations only stick with 1-2 kids you will see the world depopulate itself.
My grandmother had 8 kids, my other had 7, my mom had 4 and when I get married my limit will probably be 2. My grandmother died, so next in line would be my uncles, aunts and parents. After all that happens we will end up with a depopulated world. Unless of course there was a world war or a long war.

This subject is not as worrying as you make it sound. If populations would learn to work together then I am sure we would have better use of our resources.

Ok
Take a who generation
8 men 8 woman and 8 kids 16 die and 8 remain and mary, they have one kid each again 16 go's 8 stay, how many people die and how many remain?
32 die and in the end you have 8 kids that will mary some one from another family.
It's simple to calculate, you have 2 families each a man a wife and a child
the 2 kids mary 4 parents die in the end you have the kids as parents and one kid of their own. that is 4-3=1 the number of depopulation, so the rate of depopulation of 2 families would be by 1, If you count the bilions of people on this earth it makes a huge difrence.

reply to post by pepsi78

---

Pollution can be cleaned up. There's examples all over the globe where heavily polluted areas have been made livable once again. Furthermore, we're getting better every day at figuring out ways to PREVENT pollution. China's just one country-not part of the big picture, and even at that I think you're forgetting China's efforts to clean up its own mess.

reply to post by pepsi78

---

You're quick... read my edit.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

---

So what, you're going to imprison people for having babies? Look at the planet and use some common sense, people start wars for being told what mythical overseeing being to believe in. You really think that's gonna fly?

The more you try and argue your point, the more I'm convinced you're either trolling or have no moral or ethical values at all.

reply to post by mattifikation

---

Dude, if you have interest in continuing to remain on this board, I seriously suggest you tone down your rhetoric.

reply to post by mattifikation

---

How many times are you going to run against the wall before you go around it? Depopulation is the obvious choice to reduce the strain on humanity and it's planet. It's the most simple because it has the closest reltation to nature. You can talk green energy, and vegetarianism all day, but unless we alter our social structure, change will be too late.

I promise.. It's not bad, it's not evil, it's free of all ill intentions, but it is very, very necessary that we start somewhere. As an advocate, I've already made it apparent that I will not have children. Easy as that.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

---

How is it closest to nature? Care to elaborate?

I call it like I see it. What would you say if, for argument's sake, I started arguing that maybe the holocaust wasn't such a bad idea? If it would have worked out, there'd be no Israel, thus far fewer problems in the middle east, a whole lot less people using the world's resources to boot.

You would say I either have no morals, or that I was trolling.

When he started calling me "Matty" the gloves came off.

Not really there are bio degradabile products that are harder to clean and will degrade and enter the soil, like plastic bags, and plastic materials.
Water is hard to clean with out using chemicals, try drinking tap water, can you do that?if you do you won't live very long as the clorine will add up in your organsim and atack your liver and your heart in time, aslo the air can't be the same, there is no magical wand to clean it up, if you stop all the cars in new yourk right now it won't make a difrence, the filth is there, inplanted in the gorund, on every wall, in the air, and it stays there
, You think it's so easy to clean everything up and that the earth will magicly clean it's self up, you are saying those places were cleaned up to a limit, try cleaning up new york or other big cities.

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

---

When the wall doesn't wreak of dead babies who weren't authorized to be born, and people starving to death because they don't have enough children to work their farms.

Until then I'll keep running into your wall until I smash it to bits. :-)

Common sense. Oh, where ever may it be?

You're jumping to the most extreme of conclusions to polarize the conversation. I don't think you're doing this on purpose, however it's either that or you're very simple minded. This is also no issue of "morality," but of a hypothetical social-environmental policy.