I think the world is overpopulated, we see right now a serious problem with food and water. To all those people who say we are not overpopulated i say that people right now are starving, millions starve, millions don't have clean water. Nature is dying in many areas, seas are over fished.

The only logical conclusion is we need less people. Ladies and gentlemen do some basic maths. Each human requires a certain amount of space. Add up the acres needed to make your computer, the clothes you are wearing, the bed you lie on, the house you live in etc and you end up with a serious area of land. Now recognise that we also need to leave much of the land alone to let nature take charge and keep many species alive. If we don't allow for this then the biosphere collapses and many peopel die off anyway due to famine.

I do not agree with killing anyone, at all, ever. So the only logical approach i can think of is encouraging people to have less, or no children. I am wondering if anyone here has an alternative approach. I hate to infringe on peoples rights but if we keep going as we are, when we reach a point where there isn't enough food and water then we will realise the point anyway and many will die horribly. It's simple logic.

There is no way out of this. The only question is when people will realise it. Some have realised it already, others will realise it later.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I am in full agreement with your idea for you to not reproduce. I think that would be best for the world.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I think the world is overpopulated, we see right now a serious problem with food and water. To all those people who say we are not overpopulated i say that people right now are starving, millions starve, millions don't have clean water. Nature is dying in many areas, seas are over fished.

The only logical conclusion is we need less people. Ladies and gentlemen do some basic maths. Each human requires a certain amount of space. Add up the acres needed to make your computer, the clothes you are wearing, the bed you lie on, the house you live in etc and you end up with a serious area of land. Now recognise that we also need to leave much of the land alone to let nature take charge and keep many species alive. If we don't allow for this then the biosphere collapses and many peopel die off anyway due to famine.

I do not agree with killing anyone, at all, ever. So the only logical approach i can think of is encouraging people to have less, or no children. I am wondering if anyone here has an alternative approach. I hate to infringe on peoples rights but if we keep going as we are, when we reach a point where there isn't enough food and water then we will realise the point anyway and many will die horribly. It's simple logic.

There is no way out of this. The only question is when people will realise it. Some have realised it already, others will realise it later.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

And for how long do you plan for this zero population hiatus?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I am in full agreement with your idea for you to not reproduce. I think that would be best for the world.

Lol so you reacted with your emotions and failed to address the argument. For your information i will not reproduce, i have made that decision at a young age and now i'm older i stick to it.

When did you last stand up for something you believe in i wonder?

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

And for how long do you plan for this zero population hiatus?

Zero population? Please explain. I said careful planning not zero population. It could be ramped down slowly.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I think we have too many people, but also the worlds resources are not used with efficiency, and are not spread evenly to ensure we all have enough. There is too much greed. The dumb people have more babies than the smart people. What do we do then, short of killing 2/3 of us?

We need to make use of the space and resources we have more efficiently. We need underwater cities, or layered cities that save space and work with nature rather than against it. We need to harness the natural, limitless sources of energy the earth produces, and we need to do it all yesterday.

I happen to believe that it is happening through nature and the chaos anyway.

The way it is going, man will kill many and natural attrition is nature's (God's) way of letting it happen. My thoughts.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

And for how long do you plan for this zero population hiatus?

Zero population? Please explain. I said careful planning not zero population. It could be ramped down slowly.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

So the only logical approach i can think of is encouraging people to have less, or no children.

How long do you think this should be in action?

Well here in the UK we have many rather horrible money grabbing scumbags who sit on benefit, with perfect health simply because they are lazy. So why not offer them money to get women to have their tubes tied and men to have their tubes cut?

Stop having sex people!
Here is my second line.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by cancerian42]

Originally posted by cancerian42
Stop having sex people!
Here is my second line.

NEVER! YOu can ahve as much sex as you want, just not babies, quite easy really.

As for eugenics, that one disgusts me, is scientifically flawed and basically eugenicists need a smack. It is however interesting to see that when some people talk about population control that others leap to eugenics. Eugentics is flawed, end of story.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by munkey66
The population will naturally eradicate itself just as nature does it, it doesn't need any help from an egotistical race of people who believe they are above nature.

This is where my point is. We can choose to wait and have millions die from famine or we can choose to help people reduce their breeding by offering money to not have kids and show the advantages of not having kids. Which would you choose?

Originally posted by dashen
Here, Here! Finally, in total unsarcastic agreement with you dude. There are many ways to make room for another 6 Billion people. But they are huge and "expensive" unertakings. For instance, if you paid all the starving people in Africa to dig a GIANT canal or irrigation ditch through the Sahara desert you would get enough arable land to feed ALL of Afirca. Give the thirsty de-humidifiers. They pull pure water from the air. Desalination plants, deep water wells instead of deep oil wells. hydroelectric and geothermal power is enough to power the world for nearly pennies per person per year. All this and many other bonkers ideas from anyone who can think of good ideas instad of killing people.

Erm no, quite simply no. Firstly desalination plants wouldn't be enough to irrigate the Sahara, even nuclear plants would struggle to produce this energy. Ontop of that, where in my post did i say about killing anyone?

Drop your ignorant Utopian views, the technology isn't there yet!

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by dashen
Oh my no, I meant to irrigate all freshwater sources, such as the nile and its branches into a giant irrigation ditch from east to west. Dams can be build along this "river" to harness "power" and fresh water. "Power" can desalinate mediteranian and atlantic sea water. plentiful water in a desert creates arable land, and food. Food supports life. Well, in effect your idea kills either every one, because noone will have any children anymore, or someone, who I'm sure will be very qualified, will get to decide who has how many babies and why.

And where is all the freshwater to come from? Don't you quite get that when large freshwater bodies have been used for irrigation they have dried up? You look at things far to simply. Power can desalinate water but to do that you ahve to mine thousands of acres of soil to gain the Uranium, not to mention the building of the plants and in the end you still will not provide enough power to desalinate enough water to grow crops. Do you have any idea how much water is needed to grow even one acre of wheat? It's shocking.

My idea does not say no one will have children. It simply offers money to people to not have children and license those who can afford to bring them up. Obviously the government would still give benefits to those who want children but it would be a small percentage of the upbringing costs.

Em, fresh water comes from the nile and its tributaries, which just empties into the mediteranian nowadays. Screw nuclear power. Reservoirs and hydro electric dams would be built along the canals. And so in your system only people with money, and lots of it would be allowed to have kids. Nice system. Sorry, you don't get to reproduce because you work three minimum wage jobs to pay your bills. Oh sure Mr. CEO of Enron, procreate and be fruitful, the world is your oyster.