|
Post Number: 1
|
Client
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 21 2000,07:58 |
|
|
A maximum of two (2) blood children? I was thinking about government programs to reduce population (considering it is the root of every major economical (billions of needy, dying children/mothers/men/women), social (billions of needy dying children/mothers/men/women), and ecological (billions of dying [everyone] from the multitudes' increasing needs for transportation/energy/food) problem man faces.). What would you say to a program that offers health benefits to families who adopt/don't have children? Or an actual two-child limitation law (of course Americans would freak; IDIOTS---It is important to realize that through limiting birth and taking away certain MINOR rights we preserve the right to live of EVERY human being to come)? I have thought of a "sterilization at birth" plan as well...after turning...lets say...21, providing your Child Care License (which can be obtained through rigorous several month training sessions), as well as proof of financial stability for yourself and the child for a period of at least two years, you would be granted your Birthing License and have your reproductive (male and female) organs untied or whatnot to enable pregnancy. I do not know...I would love feedback…I am a just a young man of 17, lonely and wondering, surrounded by a generation of spoiled ignorance, looking for some intellectual stimulation. Anyone out there?
------------------ "Around 2300, every square mile of the earth's landmass will have the population density of Manhattan at noon." -Isaac Asimov This means that the day before this occurs, the masses will eat last grain of rice and burn the last block of wood. The ability to prevent nature’s solution to a extreme rise in population is my goal. clients@home.com
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 2
|
|
Post Number: 3
|
Client
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 21 2000,08:31 |
|
|
Are you fucking kidding me? Do the homework kid. At the rate we are going the moon will not handle a tenth of us at that crucial point--it wouldn’t now--and where are the resources that will keep those people alive? Solar power is great, but it does not provide soil or organic life (and there is no “soil” the moon--which humans are destroying species of left and right. England had land to expand to--we do not. In addition, we have already killed 10,000 species of life. Granted, there are a lot left, but we killed the last 9,000 in the last fifty years. The moon is not a solution, and even if it was, how much money do YOU think it would cost to set it up a habitat? I think you need to re-evaluate the actual problem, as well as step out of that fantasy world that has somehow deceived you into believing that science fiction solution.------------------ "Around 2300, every square mile of the earth's landmass will have the population density of Manhattan at noon." -Isaac Asimov Ever see a cage of rats starve to death? [This message has been edited by Client (edited June 21, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Client (edited June 21, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 4
|
|
Post Number: 5
|
|
Post Number: 6
|
|
Post Number: 7
|
|
Post Number: 8
|
The_Hiro
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 21 2000,13:22 |
|
|
The Ethical SolutionThe population growth rate in first world nations isn't the main problem (We've got a greying population...). The growth rate is much worse in the Third World. And until these countries make a transition from their resource-based economies to post-industrial economies, their population growth will continue to be explosive (regardless of education). That's because survival in the third world is hugely aided by a having large family (i.e. it's much easier to run a farm with 12 people vs. 4; it's easier to survive on pitiful wages when you've got a large family pooling its efforts). The solution to the population problem is to bring the third world countries up to speed - move them out of functioning on a resource-based level. Once that's done, much of the incentive for starting up a large family is eliminated and the growth rate will be diminished. Not so easy to accomplish, though (of course there are no easy answers to this problem), because it'll take financial aid from first world countries to get things going. Last time I checked there weren't any willing volunteers. It seems to me that we're doomed. Cage of rats indeed. The Unethical Solution(s) a) Some kind of sterilization program. Put something into the water supply of Third World countries. b) Put Wolfguard into power. c) 'Test' nuclear weapons in Third World countries. Another ethical solution but ultimately doomed to failure, check out http://www.vhemt.org If you're looking for a laugh check out the section "Do some people misunderstand the VHEMT concept?"
[This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 21, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 9
|
Bozeman
Guardian
Group: Members
Posts: 762
Joined: Jun. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 21 2000,15:16 |
|
|
First off let me say genocide sucks. If you kill 2/3 of the population, it will just grow again. Of course, natural processes are a limiting factor to growth, but relying on these will cause innocent people to starve or die from disease, and that is not cool. We need to build up 3rd world countries, because grinding poverty is where most of this excess population is created. (see one of Carl Sagan's many books for solutions to this problem) Also, we need more room. China and India are extremely densely populated. Perhaps we could terraform Mars ala Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. Of course this is about a hundred years away, but it's an idea, and we need more ideas now. Jello in 2000, join the green wedge!
|
|
|
|
Post Number: 10
|
Wolfguard
Flyswatter of the Apocalypse
Group: Members
Posts: 1696
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 21 2000,16:25 |
|
|
i dont think we have a hundred years. Yes if you take out 2/3 of the pop it will grow again. Point is you have 2,000,000,000 less people to feed and use resources.check this out... The world's population surpassed 6 billion in October, 1999. Last year world population grew by nearly 80 million. Of this growth, 97 percent occurred in the poorest parts of the world. Because of the failure to come to grips with the problem of rapid population growth in previous years, three billion young people, equal to the whole population of the world as short a time ago as 1960, will enter their reproductive years in the next generation. By no later than the year 2025, the combined population of Asia and Africa will be 6.5 billion, significantly more people than now live on the entire planet. 300 million women want and need family planning but lack either information or means to obtain it. One billion people have no access to health care. Eight million infants under age one will die this year, 22,000 each day, many because their mother did not know how to allow appropriate intervals between pregnancies. More than 600,000 women die every year because of complications from pregnancy and abortion, many because of unwanted pregnancies that could have been avoided through family planning. 2.3 billion people live without adequate sanitation. At least 75 million pregnancies each year (out of a total of 130 million) are unwanted. They result in 45 million abortions and more than 18 million live births. There are an estimated 333 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) each year. Worldwide, the disease burden of STDs in women is more than five times that of men. 1.3 billion people live in absolute poverty, surviving on less than ũ per day -- with roughly 600 million people homeless or without adequate shelter. 85 countries are unable to grow or purchase enough food to feed their populations, 840 million people are malnourished. The African sub-continent is the fastest growing region in the world with the highest fertility rates, doubling its population in 25 years. Unemployment in many countries of the developing world is 30 percent or higher. 120 million people are actively looking for work; 700 million are classified as underemployed, working long hours, often at back-breaking jobs that fail to even come close to meeting their needs. In 1950, only one city in the developing world had a population greater than 5 million; by the year 2000, there will be 46 such cities. The total worldwide annual cost of better reproductive health care is about ม billion, less than one week of the world's expenditure on armaments. 600,000 square miles of forest were cut down in the last decade. 26 billion tons of arable topsoil vanish from the world's cropland every year. Global climate change is disrupting weather patterns; causing more severe droughts and flooding, and increased threat to human health. The number of rural women living in poverty in developing countries has increased by almost 50 percent over the last 20 years, to an awesome 565 million. At least 1.5 billion people, nearly one-quarter of the world's population, lack an adequate supply of drinking water. Now tell me that drastic measures are out of the question. We need time and ill gladly buy this time with the lives of others. ------------------ The gene pool has no life guard, support the GPPTF (Gene Pool Purification Task Force) http://www.geocities.com/jgoeke610/ Past and future pr0n star :)
|
|
|
|
|
|