Well I'm not sure, you might even need to have mandatory abbortions. But I don't see why killing people quickly would be any worse then sending them into war. Where they could be killed in worse ways. And not only that but war hurts the people who arn't even a part of it too.
Well I'm not sure, you might even need to have mandatory abbortions. But I don't see why killing people quickly would be any worse then sending them into war. Where they could be killed in worse ways. And not only that but war hurts the people who arn't even a part of it too.
I think that war is better because it has SOME hope that you will live. Yes there are brutal ways to die in war like having napalm splashed on you, but you still have a fighting chance. The reason people dont like abortion is that they think the baby dosen't have a fighting chance. What I think would help is to start studying embryos and being alowed to modify them.
Well how is that good? The problem is that there are too many people. If war just brutally kills some and tranatizes others then war does't solve the proble well enough. I can understand what you mean about the baby not having a chance. But right now we have too many people and they need chances too. Not only do these people need chances but they will suffer without them.
[/quote]Well how is that good? The problem is that there are too many people. If war just brutally kills some and tranatizes others then war does't solve the proble well enough. I can understand what you mean about the baby not having a chance. But right now we have too many people and they need chances too. Not only do these people need chances but they will suffer without them.[quote] Well war limits population quite well (though disturbingly) it kills people so they wont make new people and also removes one from the population and the people who survived but are badly tramatized wont be as "up for it" as they used to be.
Big fail on quotes up there. And it gives more chances for people to get money or scholorships by inlisting in the army and then repeating the cycle or shining through if they are lucky.
Well war limits population quite well (though disturbingly) it kills people so they wont make new people and also removes one from the population and the people who survived but are badly tramatized wont be as "up for it" as they used to be.
"The population of Afghanistan in 2003 was estimated by the United Nations at 23,897,000, which placed it as number 46 in population among the 193 nations of the world. In that year approximately 3% of the population was over 65 years of age, with another 43% of the population under 15 years of age. There were 107 males for every 100 females in the country in 2003. According to the UN, the annual population growth rate for 2000â"2005 is 3.88%, with the projected population for the year 2015 at 35,473,000."
That 3% was probably that little because of war and that 43% is too young for war. The growing population is probably from all the new help they are getting from the US.
Yes but it kills people horribly. That's a problem. It's like choice between coal and solar energy. At the momet coal is more effective but it has some side affects. While solar energy is cleaner but not as effective. But over time solar energy can be made to be more effective and still just as clean. If you can make it so that war isn't brutally killing people then it would be the prefered method to handel birth control.
If you can make it so that war isn't brutally killing people then it would be the prefered method to handel birth control
Sadly brutality is mainly used as a fear factor so the enimies will give up. Now if there was a never ending war, then the tactics could be refined so no brutality will be expressed. That would also create a steady birth control if there was a never ending war. It would be kind of like a butcher house but it would be called something nicer to keep people going into te war.
And what you were saying about solar energy, it also has the anoying habit of being way too expensive in the beggining of getting solar power and most people can't afford the switch.
tbh i can't be bother to read your whole conversation. just wanted to point out that war does not always mean that the population gets smaller. it can even grow in wartime.
as for wars itself, they all suck and governments especialy the usa government should try to put more efforts in talking it out then bombing another country.
as for wars itself, they all suck and governments especialy the usa government should try to put more efforts in talking it out then bombing another country.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USA doesn't just go in and bomb everything. The last time I can think of where the US was actually at war with another country was the Vietnam War (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
