ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

290 32878
thecode11
offline
thecode11
242 posts
505

Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.

  • 290 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

if 7 billion fir in L.A. then 25 billion fit in california. leaving loads of room for production.


Uh, Party...you might able to 'fit' 25 billion in california, if you mash people next to each other. There's no way you could fit that many in that area with more than a few inches between them.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

spread it out of the usa then.
anyway. it's not space that we lack. but balance.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

spread it out of the usa then.
anyway. it's not space that we lack. but balance.


Even if you spread it out, there would still be critical lacks in proper waste disposal, clean water/electric generators. Any roads would be packed even with mass transit and pollution/litter would rule. Disease would also spread far faster due to the proximity living conditions would impose in small apartments and medical facilities would be vastly overburdened.

The more people you shove onto this planet, the more problems we have. It doesn't matter how well you control resources, eventually there's too many and either everyone starves equally or some get left out. That's why the problem needs to be averted beforehand.
stinkyjim
offline
stinkyjim
487 posts
1,585

Nuclear holocaust. If most the planet isn't destroyed by the massive explosions, the clouds of radiation will wipe out the remaining survivors, as well as block out the sun and create a frigid wasteland across the globe. The shockwaves from the blasts would surely cause massive earthquakes also.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

Mutate a larger predator to control the human population.

A virus will do. No need to make Godzilla.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

A virus will do. No need to make Godzilla.


Godzilla would be more awesome though.
LlordMaso
offline
LlordMaso
38 posts
0

I think the problem is not really about the over population, but it is how we allocate the resources that we all have.. rich man gets more and the poor ones almost gets nothing... same applies with countries... if only rich countries who have too much can give some to the poor countries then it'll be good.. (but that would be impossible)

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,479 posts
24,830

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.


We don't have overpopulation. The world actually has enough arable land to support more people, just that we aren't using it eventually.

Secondly, 2.1 is the magical replacement level, that is, the basic amount needed just to sustain our population.

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.


God....try telling people they have to work more and more. They're already protesting when they raised it by a couple of years; and try telling that to people who have worked for close to half a century.

This also does not take into account the fact that old people simply can't do the job as efficiently, or do all kinds of job.

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.


No one talks about population increase, but population maintenance. We won't be able to maintain our economic, social and political systems with lesser and lesser people. Japan is already facing the strains of this system.

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.


You certainly are stable at 2% growth. Sorry, but no sane economist will agree that growth is unimportant, quite the opposite! With growth comes an increase in taxes, more to invest in infrastructure, education, medical services and the like. With no growth, look at Greece now!
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

eventually there's too many

depends on the balance.
we already have these problems if we all live like the western world.

if we all live like in africa then we could take maybe another 100 billion befor the gets to much for the planet to sustain us.

it's the balance not the space.

With growth comes an increase in taxes, more to invest in infrastructure, education, medical services and the like.

i agree whit everything you said nicho. except for this. well. it is true but growth is not needed as long you can maintain what you have.
the problems arise when it shrinks (like whit greece, japan, china and many more atm.)
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,479 posts
24,830

i agree whit everything you said nicho. except for this. well. it is true but growth is not needed as long you can maintain what you have.
the problems arise when it shrinks (like whit greece, japan, china and many more atm.)


Yes, but to maintain, you need to grow. The US can't maintain itself, simply because 2% growth is too little. China can't too, because a growth rate below double digits is simply far too little to cover itself.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

to maintain, you need to grow.

to a certain end, yes.
i'm going to have problems explaining this. and it will be very nitpicking.
so yea, your right.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

We don't have overpopulation. The world actually has enough arable land to support more people, just that we aren't using it eventually.


I'm aware of that. Hence I said eventual more dire problem. The world can support seven billion people. It cannot support four times that. Currently, the doubling rate is somewhere around what, 45 years? In a century's time we'll have that magical, absurd number at the pace we're going.

Secondly, 2.1 is the magical replacement level, that is, the basic amount needed just to sustain our population.


I'm aware of that. However, what we need is less, not more.

God....try telling people they have to work more and more. They're already protesting when they raised it by a couple of years; and try telling that to people who have worked for close to half a century.


Yes, well, ignoring the problem because we don't like what has to be done to fix it is how things go to ruin. This is only going to get worse and require more drastic measures the longer it's put off.

This also does not take into account the fact that old people simply can't do the job as efficiently, or do all kinds of job.


True, but that does not mean there are not ways they can still contribute to the economy.

We won't be able to maintain our economic, social and political systems with lesser and lesser people


So change them.

With growth comes an increase in taxes, more to invest in infrastructure, education, medical services and the like.


And then we eventually run out of room, because we have no more space to grow inside of. Which results in the mass die off of hundreds of millions due to lack of resources.

We cannot grow forever, and the larger the population, the faster it grows. I've said this 3-4 times now. We're not overpopulated yet, but we're quickly approaching there and it's going to be a million times harder to deal with if we shove it off until the actual crisis comes, and a lot more painful.
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,605 posts
620

Eventually some wiseass is going to make people pay to live on the moon. Then orbital habitats, then mars, and so-on. It's about expansion, not reduction.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

It's about expansion, not reduction.


That's an option, though we do not have the technology currently to make this feasible on a large scale. If we could forever expand, growth would not be a problem. It's only when we're stuck with a cap that this problem becomes very ... problematic.
wontgetmycatnip
offline
wontgetmycatnip
95 posts
975

That's an option, though we do not have the technology currently to make this feasible on a large scale. If we could forever expand, growth would not be a problem. It's only when we're stuck with a cap that this problem becomes very ... problematic.


Space...the final frontier...endless...silent...waiting. This is the story of the United Space Ship Enterprise...its mission...a five year patrol of the galaxy where no man has gone before...a STAR TREK.
Showing 31-45 of 290