So. How do you guys feel about population control? Is it ethical? Is it logical? Is it necessary? What kind of population control do you think would work best, if any at all? Can I haz cookie?
Not a bad idea, but natural light is a major issue, and if a cave in/avalanche etc. were to occur, multitudes would die, before help could arrive.
As for the UV issue, lets use the Gobi as an example. It is not so 'dead' because the ozone is particularly thin, it has been turned into a desert because the Himalaya's to the west catch the majority of rain clouds traveling to the area, thereby severely decreasing rain fall in the area, and voila - desert.
Where theres plant life there is usually rain. So an idea is to increase the ozone layer, fertilize the soil, then plant thousands of adult desert based trees and create a lake there. If it does work the soil will change after maybe thirty years, and the land will become ready for human life. I'd say what ever settlement was started there would have to coexist properly with the land or resources would dry up fast. As for the over population of that settlement, it would be watched carefully.
Au contraire, some forms of desert plant life require at most a few inches of rain a year, simply 'creating' a lake in the desert wouldn't work, as evaporation would simply cause it to dissipate. Also I'm still not understanding why you're talking about the ozone layer, it simply protects all life from UV rays, it doesn't much more effect than that.
Due to mass raising of cattle, crop rotation, great technology, low survival needs, high fertility/mortality ratios, and higher age rates, our population expenditure is much higher than it would be naturally. Eventually though, our population will get out of control and we will have to compete furiously and zealously over resources. Logically, the answer would be to reduce the population. Forcefully reducing the population is immoral, however.
One problem solver would be to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies by increased "lanned parenthood" awareness. We all know abstinence doesn't work. Societies that invokes abstinence much higher than and/or bans planned parenthood have more teenage pregnancies AND STDs.
Personally, I think the one-child rule is a fantastic idea to gradually reduce population control. People can wave the communist flag all they want, but what do parents, as animals, really want? Give out pills, condoms, and contraceptives. Let them know that abstinence isn't the answer and make them happy. Educate them on the RIGHT time to have a child. Otherwise, if you want to have sex, have sex--just be protected.
Due to mass raising of cattle, crop rotation, great technology, low survival needs, high fertility/mortality ratios, and higher age rates, our population expenditure is much higher than it would be naturally.
So, do we force an abortion if they get pregnant again? Or do we "relocate" the child to a family with no children?
Personally, if they are educated enough about planned parenthood, then most of the population wouldn't get pregnant anyways. In the event that they are pregnant, then abort, while the mother is still in the Germination period.
Personally, if they are educated enough about planned parenthood, then most of the population wouldn't get pregnant anyways. In the event that they are pregnant, then abort, while the mother is still in the Germination period.
Accidents happen and if the only way to prevent it in the first place is forced birth control pills then I'm against it. Forcing abortion would be horrible, immoral, and totalitarian.
Because they are still "babies" right? Even though the mother is still in the Germination period where the mass of cells has no conscious, feeling, emotion, activity, or intelligence at all? Totalitarian? That's a bit much. And the morning after pill is seriously not aborting the way everyone thinks a regular abortion is.
Because they are still "babies" right? Even though the mother is still in the Germination period where the mass of cells has no conscious, feeling, emotion, activity, or intelligence at all? Totalitarian? That's a bit much.
I said forcing abortion not abortion, it's forcing your viewpoint on someone else to an extreme. It's infringing on my right to choice, similar to abortion or homosexual marriage being illegal.
And the morning after pill is seriously not aborting the way everyone thinks a regular abortion is.
Forcing an individual to take any medication is ridiculous.
All the people who live in Africa who will starve to death within a year or less should get killed, more out of sympathy than anything else.
When you take things out of context they begin to become skewed in any way you wish it to be skewed in. Major "News" corporations do it all the time. When you decided to bold face specific words in my sentence, you skewed the sentence to make it seem as if I wanted to kill every person in Africa. What I was suggesting was that you kill all of the people who are in mass camps with no food, clean water, or much medical aide. If you go into those camps you will see disease, starvation and most likely corpses. If you were to eradicate all of those people in those types of situations in Africa, then you would be doing those people and the world a service.
I wish to ask you, have any of you heard of a "Carrying Capacity"? It is a term that describes the optimal number of one species in a certain area. When a species exceeds this optimal range, humans are gererally forced to eradicate some of the species to ensure the welfare of the rest of the population. When you control a population of deer for example, you have several different means of thining the herd, so to speak. No matter which way you try to make your solution heard, however, nothing is more cost effective, efficient, or humaine then getting together hunters (either professional sharpshooters or just Average Joe Blow) and having them hunt the deer into a optimal range.
That is why I suggested doing the same thing to humans, because what are we other then glorified animals? If you wish to see a group of people die from disease, or starvation, then let those people in Africa who live in squalor die in a year, or two years. They will die, and it will be slow and agonizing. It is vastly more humaine to go in with a gun and shoot a man thhrough the temple then to let him slowly starve to death while you just sit back and watch.
As for getting rid of the people on this planet with a less than average IQ, or who are elderly, if you don't agree with it, fine. All I want to point out is that this world was based on survival of the fittest. In an antelope herd the sick and the old die first. If an antelope was born with autixm it would be one of the first to die, simply because it is much harder for it to stay in step with the rest of the herd. It is a given that it would die before the strongest and least diseased of the herd, so why keep a human with a similar condition alive.
If it seems like I have no empathy or love, that is not true. I just see the world differently than you do and that is okay. Just don't condemn me for it.
wish to ask you, have any of you heard of a "Carrying Capacity"?
Yep, we haven't reached it and we really aren't that close.
Aren't you a Christian and therefore should be strongly against the notion of survival of the fittest? Evolution aside survival of the fittest when applied to humans comes from the odd idea of social Darwinism. Humanity has survived because we work together so well and for no other reason.
Yes, I did argue the christian point of view in another thread, but since I have no soul, and don't give a rat's arse about other humans, I am free to say what I want. Plus it says in the bible to know your enemies so I get aquainted with the darker side of things as often as I can.
Yet, you boldly display a cross on your profile, you seem more like a troll and hypocrite than a respectable user as time goes on. Also, my bolding of the text did nothing but point out what portion I was referring too. There was no need for me to play mass media and hype up the shock value of the statement, you managed that all by yourself.
@Samy
It's actually rather likely that we've exceeded the carrying capacity, in certain continents at the very least.
