What do you guys think of the possibility of limiting how many children a mother can give birth to? In my opinion, in places like Africa and India, where there is lack of birth control, we should help focus on that. Apparently, Earth can only support about 10 ~ 20 billion people at max, and at the rate we are growing right now, it could reach that population in 2025~2030. (I have no sources for this, it's a rough estimate)
This has it's drawbacks though. You could never have a sibling, and families would be much smaller. What do you think?
Earthquakes with a magnitude of 8.0+ usually have a chance of toppling most buildings, but I'm sure we'll find a stronger material and we can dig a larger base.
Most places in the world aren't earthquake hazard zones.
I meant to say not good...
Well then, I think my solution is the best one any of us have come up with so far.
Has nothing to do with the fact that I was the only one to come up with a solution.
Yes, let's totally e-mail the government our opinions...
You go ahead. The Canadian government doesn't get too many emails.
Then start doing something.
No, posting in forums is about making other people do things you want to get done but you don't want to do.
I do not see how you think this would work. Sure, showering with cleaned sea water, no problem there. But it wouldn't actually remove that water. It has to go somewhere when you're done with it.
No, posting in forums is about making other people do things you want to get done but you don't want to do.
Which is stupid. You know that proverb or whatever it is with "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself"? Yeah? It actually holds up. Sure, it might be difficult to do it all alone, but then what you do is start getting people to do something. Forums can be used to raise awareness. Not sure it's effective, though.
Sewage treatment plant? I don't see why not...
You know they treat the sewage so that it can be led back out into the general flow of things, right? They don't just stash up massive piles of it forever.
Which is stupid. You know that proverb or whatever it is with "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself"? Yeah? It actually holds up. Sure, it might be difficult to do it all alone, but then what you do is start getting people to do something.
Leave doing stuff to the experts. If we don't have people to inform them, they're more useless than we are.
You know they treat the sewage so that it can be led back out into the general flow of things, right? They don't just stash up massive piles of it forever.
Yes, they reuse the water, so why can't we just do that?
Alright, I'm going back to the original topic, Heads up about that. Anyway, limiting children legally born to a couple would lead to possible abandonment of these children until the desirable child is born. Like gender, or possibly hair color (Though that's screwed up in my view) I believe children in china used to be put up for adoption if they weren't a male, because males were more useful to the family back in the day. This has probably been outlawed as well,
the reason why that males were more desirable in ancient china involves many reasons.
1.as families used to live in one big house back then,the daughter would have to leave the house and live at the husband's. they would also lose their name and go under the husband's
2. it was almost taboo to not give a large wedding gift to the groom following the wedding ( or rough equivalent of a wedding). this cost the family a lot of money.
3. as males keep the family name, families with a lot of females didnt last very long.
but anyway, why does it say per country instead of per couple/person?
Oh this issue has come up again, it likes to rear its ugly head every now and then. First of all, there is no possible way to limit people to only have one child, at least not morally or ethically. Now, you can say China's done it but China doesn't exactly take morales and ethics into their decision making process. Sometimes I think all these people that say we need to cut the human population by some degree or go extinct all together should just shoot themselves, but I doubt that'll happen. Granted, global overpopulation is an issue we COULD face in the next century or two but better use of our resources and land could quickly remedy it. You could move the entire human population to the American Southwest and have a lower population density than New York City I believe, so overpopulation is not the actual problem, where our population lives is. But, since we established world peace last week, ended world hunger last Wednesday, cured cancer on Thursday, convinced killers to stop killing on Friday and lost all the contraceptives over the weekend lets look at a solution that will end this problem once and for all.
That solution is, finally colonizing space. We went to the Moon in 1969 yet we have never really done anything there. We have the technology to return and actually colonize but we don't have the money, well, we do, but we don't want to give the space program and instead numerous other government programs and wars. All we'd really need to do is get a few people to the Luna surface with mining equipment and a basic base. They start working and then we send more workers, this also brings down unemployment as a positive side effect. The materials mined from the Moon are stored on sight and when they are finally finished mining the area they begin to build the colony, most likely in layers.
Layer 1, the bottommost, would be water storage, most likely in the form of a large lake to keep fish stock. Then perhaps an agricultural level on 2, a city on 3, and a port on 4/surface. Harvesting solar power would be cheap and easy and the colony would most likely be able to power itself. While we're at it a nuclear reactor or two on the surface away from the colony couldn't hurt so power wouldn't be an issue. After a couple years, a decade or two, people would begin to trust the colony and begin moving there, releaving the planet of its extra population. Soon, more and more colonies would be built and as technology increased as it would, orbital colonies could be built and eventually Martian ones. All this unused space, all those unused resources and all those unemployed workers would be put to quick use.
Financing is where the problem comes in. The $15billion NASA recieves isn't going to cut it and they have other projects as well. This is where you turn to the private sector, get them to invest. Technology companies would love the idea due to the wealth of new technologies that would be developed and other companies from retailers to fast food to arms manufacterers would jump on the chance for the rights to be the first in a massive new market and to benefit from the tech. With the human population moving into space, more jobs will come up and we will have more space and far superiour technology, the benefits are nearly endless. But, we have to be willing to pay the price.
Try to remember what we were discussing. Glaciers?
If the glaciers melt, and we harvest saltwater for showers (or Watercone it), we will have more available water flowing in the sewers. I think that was my point.
If you want it done that way, become an expert.
No thanks, I'm not the kind of guy who does things.
Don't just sit idly around and wait. It doesn't work.
You know that proverb or whatever it is with "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself"?
Another one is: Patience is a virtue.
Question about birth limitations:
If this is done on a "er couple" basis, how does divorce play into it? If a man has a kid with his wife, then breaks up and remarries, can he have another kid with the second wife? And if the first wife remarries, can she also have another kid? What if they get divorced a second time?
My main problem with birth limitations is that it seems to point to eugenics. When we only allow so many babies to be born, people are going to want to make sure those babies count.
As it stands, I think we're overpopulated already. I think the general idea nature has for perpetuating a species, "The more the merrier," just doesn't jive with humankind all that well. We've managed to conquer our planet in so short a time-frame, relatively speaking, that we've outgrown the natural order from which we originated.
I support an idea more along the lines of "Quality over quantity." If there were only 100 humans on the planet, and every single one of them was healthy, happy, and content, then their society is of a higher value than one of 100 million humans, of which only 30% live in acceptable conditions.
I also think the ends justify the means. Whether a strict population law was enforced for several generations, or a quick violent war was sparked, so long as the human race comes out of it with a higher quality of living than before, I would support it, gladly.
So basically what youre saying is that its okay for us to go ahead and kill off all of the stupid people, leaving only the smarter more capable ones? And in the end creating 'the perfect utopia'? Well people have tried that before, they all end up destroying themselves, it never works. And anyway, that sounds more like communism to me if the government took over saying that. Its just not right
I think there should never be limited births in any country. Take China, for instance. Their births are limited, and men are required to take care of parents when they are old. So there is a shortage of women in China, and men are kidnapping women from other countries so that they can have wives.
