Forums → WEPR → What would be the best way to unpopulate the earth
| 255 | 90975 |
Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.
- 255 Replies
You one of those who think we're rotting ourselves out by our low birth rates? Only situations I hear this argument is when Islampohobic people use it to argue in favour of a creeping "Muslim invasion" due to having more children.
Yes I do. An aging population with a birth rate less than 2.1 is a disaster recipe in the making. This makes economic growth unsustainable in the long run, with an increasingly small labour pool, but with an increasingly large elderly population to support, which coupled with the fact that many of Europe's nations have generous pension schemes, would make the future look very bleak.
Yes I do. An aging population with a birth rate less than 2.1 is a disaster recipe in the making.
Overpopulation is a larger disaster recipe in the making. We cannot forever sustain a growth in numbers, basic ecology takes over eventually. Any organism that outgrows its niche suffers a decline in numbers due to lack of food, whether this is from trying to feed every member at once, or a select few hoarding the resources.
This makes economic growth unsustainable in the long run, with an increasingly small labour pool, but with an increasingly large elderly population to support,
Then why not have the elderly work, or at least encourage them to? I don't mean backbreaking physical work or "full hours." Or even pushing the retirement age back somewhat.
which coupled with the fact that many of Europe's nations have generous pension schemes, would make the future look very bleak.
The future already looks bleak. Though the difference in a sudden drop in the labor pool would be more immediate, overpopulation to the point where we're beyond what is capable of supporting centuries from now is more dire.
The longer we do not address this problem, the worse it grows. Population growth occurs at exponential rates and with our increased medical technology, people aren't dying as young on average.
When it comes down to it, there's only two ways that the population count drops. Either people die, or people stop having as many babies. One of those two is going to happen, eventually.
While we may not be overpopulated yet, we're getting there quickly.
Get the boffins to develop a disease that would consume the world. And kill the scientists that developed cures.
This makes economic growth unsustainable in the long run,
Sorry for the bad language, but I sh** on economic growth. That focus on growth is a cancer to the world; see the situation in America. What we need is stability.
I'm not saying our system is perfect; far from it. There are few things we'd need to adapt, like fighting the increasing living costs, and rising the salaries (parts of the reason why some have less children).
On the other side, we're not that bad in a shape like France, where they stop working like five years earlier than everywhere else in Europe.
but I sh** on economic growth.
look if everyone has only 1 child. then that 1 child has to make money for 3 people when his parents are retired.
if it happens on a large scale it means that it is impossible for the working people to make enough money to sustain the entire population.
if everyone has 2 children then they have to work for 2 people when their parents are retired.
if it happens on a large scale it's more easy to keep enough money coming in to sustain everyone.
i dont know exactly if nicho mend this. but the more children you have to more easy it is to get economic growth. but if you dont have enough children it means that you can't sustain everyone anymore.
but the more children you have to more easy it is to get economic growth. but if you dont have enough children it means that you can't sustain everyone anymore.
And then we have too many people and the laws of supply and demand kick in. Housing costs go through the roof, space becomes a premium, congestion occurs and kicks up transportation expenditures, pollution blossoms, utilities become strained or limited and the overall quality of life greatly decreases.
All we're doing by following this economic railway is heading for the cliff, gaining momentum as we speed down the hillside.
The more children you make, the more you will have to sustain, the mroe you will have to go into debt. Here in Switzerland, contrary to many countries, we also don't have unlimited space. We don't need growth; what we should strive for is stability. If we had population dynamics like in India, we'd be soon doomed.
Another way but harder way is to use mars and the moon to sustain colonies so we could send people there but eventually we would have to go farther to make more.We could also make more space stations but ones that support lets say 500 people in them.
Mars has, so far we know, no nature or ecosystem we need to live with. If we settle there, we bring everything with us. That means we can more or less build on all the surface. Space issues on Mars are irrelevant for now, and will be for a long time.
The perfect thing of course would be either orbital space stations, or even completely free space bases. That way you don't have any space issue at all.
use mars and the moon to sustain colonies
We've already got problems sustaining this little blue dot. Until we have the technology to make such colonies self-sufficient, that's out. At this point, simply spreading everyone out won't help.
That way you don't have any space issue at all.
there is no space issue tho. and there wont be any even if we are whit 25 billion.
we need to balance our consumerism whit what the planet can give.
there is no space issue tho. and there wont be any even if we are whit 25 billion.
we need to balance our consumerism whit what the planet can give.
With 25 billion, we won't have space issues for people moving, but we won't have enough land to grow food unless we stack upwards instead of spreading out. Or unless we take to sea-faring cities, which would drastically free up fertile land for farming.
With 25 billion, we won't have space issues for people moving, but we won't have enough land to grow food unless we stack upwards instead of spreading out. Or unless we take to sea-faring cities, which would drastically free up fertile land for farming.
if 7 billion fir in L.A. then 25 billion fit in california. leaving loads of room for production.
but we won't have enough land to grow food
we already have that problem if we all live like the western world.
You must be logged in to post a reply!