Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 4:56am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

of course this is just 1 and the closest planet kepler has found. out of the total of 503 planets untill dec. 2012.
they can search for planets up to 1000 light years. wich means. about 3% of our milky way. xD

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 6:38am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,066 posts

I still wouldn't want to live in a society as you pictured it here, Nerdsoft. Besides, children are already a financial burden, why make it worse? Best you can do is recommend people not to have kids, or only one, or adopt. Some parents decide for that on their own already.

What do you suggest? ALLOW the population to remain unsustainable? ALLOW us to just... die through our short-sighted decisions? I want this species to live. And also, what's wrong with letting our greed help us out? What's wrong with rationing when it will save our future?
What's wrong with my ideas? Tell me at least.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 6:40am

fantasy4life

fantasy4life

1,062 posts

They are potentially habitable, we don't know for sure. All we do know is these planets exist in an area far enough from the sun where liquid water can exist.

I'm pretty sure that from billions upon billions of planets we've discovered in our universe, at least one will be as close to perfect as it gets. Plus, we've discovered some pretty similar planets to our own Earth, so chances of habitation on the planets I had in mind are very, very high.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 6:46am

fantasy4life

fantasy4life

1,062 posts

What's wrong with my ideas? Tell me at least.

Your perception of humans. I haven't read your whole post, but from what I can tell, you will essentially deny these people freedom, maybe for the "greater good" sure, but do you really think that people will allow such drastic changes to their life?

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 6:50am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

so chances of habitation on the planets I had in mind are very, very high.

only in the very very long future.
a giant space station for a few million people is more realistic the next few hundred years. and even that is not certainly possible. in theory it is of course, we can make the designs. but reality isn't theory.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 6:57am

fantasy4life

fantasy4life

1,062 posts

only in the very very long future.
a giant space station for a few million people is more realistic the next few hundred years. and even that is not certainly possible. in theory it is of course, we can make the designs. but reality isn't theory.

Like I said, chances of habitation high, but

we just don't have the technology to get there.

The main point is we have more chance of finding a planet that resembles awesome-face then inhabiting a planet in the next 50 years.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 7:12am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Like I said, chances of habitation high, but

what are the planets you have in mind?
planets in our own solar system?
or planets like the earth in a different solar system?

if the latter then it doesn't matter how many we can find. they are all so far away that we can't possible get there in less then 200 year if we go by light speed. (and i doubt we will ever go by lightspeed.) (the closest found sofar is 600 light years away)

The main point is we have more chance of finding a planet that resembles awesome-face then inhabiting a planet in the next 50 years.

find it, yes.
go to it, no.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 7:15am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,081 posts

Knight

What's wrong with my ideas? Tell me at least.

Didn't I already hint at it? Parents are already accepting a financial burden when getting children without unfair suppression. I am against the criminalisation or penalisation of getting children. And there are other things to do first, like making birth control affordable to everyone including the poor, or telling those ultra-religious that god may not want them to swarm earth.

tl;dr: I know we must do something, just not this, now. We theoretically have the capacity to feed most humans on earth, we just consume like idiots and let tons of food go to waste while others are starving.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 7:28am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

I honestly haven't read much of anything that went before, but regarding this notion that no matter which way you look at it, overpopulation is some impending doom hanging over us all, here's some interesting reading material I picked up on the web:

Climate Change and 'Overpopulation.' Some reflections, The Corner House, Dec. 2009, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resour … r

The Corner House, Resources: overpopulation, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resour … r

Why Climate Change Malthusians Are Wrong. On Population, James Faris, Dec. 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/12/10/ …
George
Monbiot, The Population Myth, Sept. 2009, http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-p …
George
Monbiot And The Persistence Of The Population Myth, Michael Barker, Nov. 2009, http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker34.html .

Happy reading :)

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 7:32am

MacII

MacII

1,369 posts

Woops, and there broke the links. Let's try that again, if they break again, I guess I'll leave it to a kind mod or forum dweller to fix:

Climate Change and 'Overpopulation.' Some reflections, The Corner House, Dec. 2009, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resour … population .

The Corner House, Resources: overpopulation, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resour … population .

Why Climate Change Malthusians Are Wrong. On Population, James Faris, Dec. 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/12/10/on-population/ .

George Monbiot, The Population Myth, Sept. 2009, http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/ .

George Monbiot And The Persistence Of The Population Myth, Michael Barker, Nov. 2009, http://www.swans.com/library/art15/barker34.html .

 
Reply to What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

You must be logged in to post a reply!