Not really. I don't see the condition of Africa's disease and famines improving. Last time I checked, civil strife and famines are not improving the situation.
We've done it but we just haven't distrubited it to all the parts of the world.
Are you serious??? Two times as many children died daily just a generation ago of preventable causes. How is that for statistics?
Recent data shows that during El Nino there is twice as much likelihood of civil conflict: 3% vs 6%. If you don't believe me look up the study. It's the weathers fault.
What? I have to say that is completely inaccurate. First, not all dictators are bad and need to be taken down. Second, there are plenty of ways to get rid of one non-violently. Kinda like how they did it in Egypt.
Well, I think we need to avoid saying there is no need for war. There is such thing as a just war. The problem is that human pride is endless and we'd prefer ourselves to be comfortable over the people down the river. In the words of the prophet of Love: [quote]"Love thy neighbor as thy self."[Mark 12:31]
Population does need to be managed but war is a terrible way to do it. It's brutal, traumatizing, and it affects families too. There are better ways to control our population.
Population does need to be managed but war is a terrible way to do it. It's brutal, traumatizing, and it affects families too. There are better ways to control our population.
Abortion? Condoms? Both those things are unliked by some poeple also so war satisfies the population control if those get eliminated.
No, strict government birth rate control. If the government can slow down the birth rates in overcroweded countries then eventually their population will decrease. This has been tried and failed but if a country can control it the right way then it will be much better.
I got to be honest, I think using war as population control is barbaric but founded in logic. We can avoid war in a civil manor, yes, but the only reason war happens is because there are people who are so incredibly prideful that they cannot bare the thought of sitting down and talking out their problems. (i.e. Gadaffi of Lybia)
No, strict government birth rate control. If the government can slow down the birth rates in overcroweded countries then eventually their population will decrease. This has been tried and failed but if a country can control it the right way then it will be much better.
VBut then there's problems like in China with people actualy drowning their children, or lots of orphaned children which could lead to crime if they become discarded on the street.
Or if you really want to have a strict hand over the whole world, then the government would just have to start killing people to keep the population under the limit.
I know, when I was talking about the countries that fail at this china is definitly one of them. You need to inform people that there is a problem and what steps can be done to help. Then you also have to keep track of the birth rates each month and find ways to make sure that they start to decrease.
I know, when I was talking about the countries that fail at this china is definitly one of them. You need to inform people that there is a problem and what steps can be done to help. Then you also have to keep track of the birth rates each month and find ways to make sure that they start to decrease.
But how WILL you find ways to decrease the birth rate? The only way I could see is make the economy go really bad and people can't have another mouth to feed so they dont have children.
