Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree completely that overpopulation has a lot to do with world problems and is a constantly growing problem. However I don't think beckoning people to focus on this coming crisis can be effective. I think the best strategy is to make it a personal examination for individual's reasons to have children. If people can be shown good reasons to have smaller families, or perhaps having no children at all, it would go a long way into curbing overpopulation. Of course this strategy has to be enacted also.
Reallty is that it is too late to curb overpopulation. i understand your point of view. I wish that people could procreate and give birth to people that are, mostly, in a realistically positive panorama in which they will be become productive adults and will have a healthily emotional life. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic for society to work. The only thing I can do is recommend those who do not have that call for parenthood, do not have children, the rest, there is nothing we can do, the world overpopulate until living here becomes a mirror of hell and survive. The direction we are heading to is not promising and the fact to see many people not wanting to admit that makes me even sadder, but that is what they hace chosen...
What about overpopulation? Do we have enough resources and food, REALISTICALLY, for 7 billion people? What about the billion in Africa unnecessarily starving and dying because of the abuse and bad distribution of resources? ...
Are they starving and dying uneccessarily or are they starving and dying because that's the way life goes there? I was an adult (and had been for some years) when Bog Geldof shocked the world with his graphic appeal on behalf of the starving children in Africa.
Children who were starving and suffering because their parents had stopped cultivating the soil and started beating the crap out of each other.
We gave money. Lots of money. Over the years, the money given has saved many, many children in those parts of Africa.
Which is just as well, because if you don't 'Save the Children' where are you going to get the soldiers to fight next year's war?
If you stop sending them money, the children will starve to death. But if you keep sending them money enough will survive to provide child soldiers to make next year's intake and kill the mothers and kill the people who provide the food for those who don't get fed by the money you send them.
Damned if you do; damned if you don't.
Maybe it's time for a re-think. 'Charity begins at home'.
Reallty is that it is too late to curb overpopulation. i understand your point of view. I wish that people could procreate and give birth to people that are, mostly, in a realistically positive panorama in which they will be become productive adults and will have a healthily emotional life. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic for society to work. The only thing I can do is recommend those who do not have that call for parenthood, do not have children, the rest, there is nothing we can do, the world overpopulate until living here becomes a mirror of hell and survive. The direction we are heading to is not promising and the fact to see many people not wanting to admit that makes me even sadder, but that is what they hace chosen...
I think you're making some unrealistic assumptions. I am reasonably healthy (with good maintenance) have a life expectancy of 83 years (again, with maintenance) am reasonably smart (IQ of about 150) and I'm not a psycopath.
Should I (in your ideal world) breed?
You want ALL people to make an informed choice? - What about those who can't even choose whether they want chicken tikka or chicken marsala? (and that would have to include me, because I don't know the difference. )
Who would choose who breeds and who is not permitted [or advised - which soon becomes the same thing] to breed?
Are you a proponent of eugenics?
Once you (or any government) start interfering in who may - and who may not - breed, then I suggest that you are going to incite some very strong feelings. And you are going to incite those strong feelings in quite unexpected places.
I think you're making some unrealistic assumptions. I am reasonably healthy (with good maintenance) have a life expectancy of 83 years (again, with maintenance) am reasonably smart (IQ of about 150) and I'm not a psycopath.
Should I (in your ideal world) breed?
You want ALL people to make an informed choice? - What about those who can't even choose whether they want chicken tikka or chicken marsala? (and that would have to include me, because I don't know the difference. )
Who would choose who breeds and who is not permitted [or advised - which soon becomes the same thing] to breed?
Are you a proponent of eugenics?
Once you (or any government) start interfering in who may - and who may not - breed, then I suggest that you are going to incite some very strong feelings. And you are going to incite those strong feelings in quite unexpected places.
Well, you don't think criminals (convicted) should breed. Nor rapists or murderers or molesters of any kind. So yes, some people should not be allowed to breed.
For the rest of people, no, I cannot force any of them to stop breeding, but the rate of birth today is dangerous. Why? Because, as you can see, there are not more jobs. At least enough jobs to fill the quota of future people. If 20,000,000 people are born now, and in 25 years only 1,000,000 jobs (including low pay) are created, what will happen to the other 19 million? Some may be lucky and build their own business and succed but competition for such success will be infernal. The rest?
Living off parents
Homeless
Criminals (drug dealers, burglars, etc.)
Prostitution
Scammers
Depression/Commit suicide
See?
It is happening already. What I put above are possible solutions. Unfriendly solutions? Kinda communist-like? Maybe. But of nothing is done, it will be too late. Too late. We will enter an era in which many people would wish to die.
It is happening already. What I put above are possible solutions. Unfriendly solutions? Kinda communist-like? Maybe. But of nothing is done, it will be too late. Too late. We will enter an era in which many people would wish to die.
Perhaps compulsory sterilization?
If that's what it would transition to, then I'm all for it.
STRATEGIES FOR MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE IN TERMS OF POPULATION (Utopian Approach)
1. For the next 30 years, give birth to one or two people per family AND ONLY THOSE FAMILIES THAT HAVE MADE THE PLAN THAT RESULTS IN LESS RISKS. 3+ kids is irresponsible. Families that are not ready and do not feel they have the necessary should NOT HAVE KIDS.
2. Stop surrogation. We don't need new people out of artificial methods while there are available in foster homes and adoption homes.
3. Homosexuals, Aromantic Asexuals, Heterosexual couples with one or both not being able to have children and normal couples that have it in their heart should be encouraged to adopt.
When the population of Earth has been balanced with the resources then we can resume the current procreation methods, but at this time I believe it is urgent to stop overpopulation. While I don't personally support abortion when a fetus has formed into a being that begins to show signs of feelings, people should be given education before having sex to consider ALL THE IMPLICATIONS of having kids, which come from regular stuff like rising them to prepare them for the real, cruel world. If not ready, they should be given all the ways of protecting themselves if abstinence is not an option.
Many people criticize China for their one-child policy but if we don't stop the current rate of birth or at least try to fix the issue with the available jobs and resources there will be a time in which the government here itself will have to make some serious decisions on procreation.
Also, thise people who have been proven to be very dangerous criminals who have killed people out of fun should be executed faster and stop this process of long years waiting. For example, the 2002 DC sniper should have been executed long time ago and not in 2009. He loved 7 more years unnecessarily and consumed part of the money people pay off taxes keeping him in prison.
The main thing which will save us is a change in personal habits. We can support 10 billion people on this planet if we ate less meat/animal products, drove less, utilized clean energy, recycled our trash, etc.
Unfortunately, humans are naturally greedy and prone to convenience, even when the truth is literally knocking them over the head, and if mankind does wake up, it will be after it's too late.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
