over population or not?

[[KMA]Avenger]

its often mentioned both on these forums, in general conversations, in the media and you also hear it just about everywhere these days that the world is over populated or crowded (take your pick how you want to call it).
this is something we have danced around but have never discussed, quoting myself from the gay marriage topic:

what beats me is people being fixated on over population

the world is NOT over populated and there is MORE than enough food and wealth to go round for each and every single soul on the planet!

its more correct to say that our cities are over populated and NOT the earth.

i was never any good with maths but, if i was, i would work out how much habitable land there is and then divide the habitable land mass by each man, woman and child, giving all of us 1/2 an acre of land and i bet my house there will habitable land galore left over!


sorry for going off topic but a mod can split it if s/he likes

i stand by that statement and no one can convince me otherwise for a couple of simple reasons but the main 1 is this...bad management of habitable land (as well as land resources but that's another story).

we encroach on natural species habitation causing many species to be hunted, driven from their lands and driving many said species to the brink of extinction when there is absolutely no reason for it, especially when there IS enough land for all the people of the earth and the countless species which ALSO inhabit this planet.
properly
we also have now the technology to reclaim much land and make it habitable for humans, but i guess its easier just to say "there are to many people in the world" than to manage the land responsibly.

[Juliette]

Old friend.. why do you post a "discussion topic" if you're not going to have an open mind to begin with?



Though I will not argue against mismanagement of the land. Sure, all around us. Still, I'm not going to live in a desert, and I'm not going to ask of anyone to live in a desert, or under water, or on an ice cap, or on permafrost land, or cut down the Amazon forest to allow people to live there..

No. I completely disagree. Humans should vacate the Earth, instead of infesting it like a rotten virus. It is time someone made justice come forth and systematically remove the virus from the surface of Earth (like Israel is doing to the viral infection along the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea; *staunch Israel-supporter here*).

Yup. Remove humanity. It's degenerated so much that it's now embarrassing anyway.



So sure! There's plenty of land, G.. I agree. There's just a bunch of people that don't seem to be willing to die in order for the world to live.

That said, fact remains that if you're really sincere, there's no way you will insist on people living below sea level, above tree lines, in swampy lands, amidst rainforests, in an open field.. all unacceptable habitats for humans.

[Cole]

:lol: Old friend.. why do you post a "discussion topic" if you're not going to have an open mind to begin with?



Though I will not argue against mismanagement of the land. Sure, all around us. Still, I'm not going to live in a desert, and I'm not going to ask of anyone to live in a desert, or under water, or on an ice cap, or on permafrost land, or cut down the Amazon forest to allow people to live there..

No. I completely disagree. Humans should vacate the Earth, instead of infesting it like a rotten virus. It is time someone made justice come forth and systematically remove the virus from the surface of Earth (like Israel is doing to the viral infection along the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea; *staunch Israel-supporter here*).

Yup. Remove humanity. It's degenerated so much that it's now embarrassing anyway.



So sure! There's plenty of land, G.. I agree. There's just a bunch of people that don't seem to be willing to die in order for the world to live.

That said, fact remains that if you're really sincere, there's no way you will insist on people living below sea level, above tree lines, in swampy lands, amidst rainforests, in an open field.. all unacceptable habitats for humans.

As much as I agree that we are too much people around, there are some things that are wrong there..humans should vacate the earth. Yep, if they go elsewhere, Mars or something, and we see who survives there and who doesnt. But removing humanity...what's next? If you remove humanity, you remove earth: it's clear what is the way to remove humanity. Nuclear war. After that, nothing is left alive. Perhaps some insects, and microscopic parasites. Like after asteroids' destructions.
So, what would be the point to do that? And even if there was another way not being mass destruct...what would we gain from it (not necessarly meaning cash, of course, it's obvious )?
I'm sure none of us would be willing to give *everything* we have (clothes, house, cash, accounts etc...) to a random person considered "good" (I'm NOT talking of testaments or anything similar to it!). We would get his/her sympathy, and perhaps a long friendship. There are people who would be willing to do it, those who suddenly want to become ermits or fall into a huge spiritual concept of antimaterial philosophy. By removing humanity, what is to gain? Nothing. Not even what extremly generous before mentionned earnt from doing what they did, since everyone would have disappeared.

"Viral infection"...that sounds quite wrong. Two choices for defining it. Either there are people who you consider like that, and others not like that (then, what makes someone better than another?), or everyone is equal, and you consider yourself part of it.

[[BoT] Jason]

1.we need to start kulling people again yo make room for more but this is inhumane in some peoples eyes. 2.the better solution is to restrict families to 1 child unless twins/triplets/etc... eg. china has done this becoz of over population ,but this will take years to implement .3.so we need to seek new planets.

thats just my opinion. i prefer option 1 though

[Cole]

Seek for new planets, one child per family; all *proven* guilty by rape, viscious/crual murder (not self defence as it's hard case), terrorism, torturing innocents...death sentanced.

And anyway, it's quite clear, there is no escape to that. The china-like policy should have been implemented 50 years ago to whole world. It wasn't done, now, no matter how we solve energies and weather problems, we are doomed. It's like that. Rise and fall of species.

[[BoT] Jason]

global nuclear war willl solve it for 1500 years later

[Cole]

global nuclear war willl solve it for 1500 years later

It would be another "end of dinosaurs" destruction.
And again...I thought that getting rid of some people should have to be done if we wanted to save earth...BUT...some big problems.
Who to keep/not keep? How determining it? Who deserves to choose who lives and who doesnt?
After reading above line, you'll understand why it didn't happen (in a global level), and won't.

[[BoT] Jason]

we need a nation as bold as the germans to start another holocaust

[Cole]

Hmmm saying it this way, makes me want to go side with Avenger on this topic...

It can't be done, for reasons I mentionned.
Nobody is "superior", so there *can't* be a logic selection, we are doomed to overgrow and then fall down as quick as we grew. It's like that.

We aren't first, and we wont be last ones. Few will go in space and create other civilizations there, the rest will fall. Then, if those new civilizations survive well, same will happen, and so on, and so on.

[[BoT] Jason]

avenger makes a good point but if use all the land we will run out of natural resources we need

[Juliette]

we need a nation as bold as the germans to start another holocaust

Well.. probably not like that.
Much more 'boldness', as it will require a massive structural homicide on a much, much larger scale as a mere 15 million-deaths holocaust in order to have an actual effect on the world population and its growth.

[Cole]

And it won't happen anyway...

And Pimping D I said I would follow Avenger, as I prefer earth to fall by weight of humans, than such arbitral horrible thing to happen again.

[[BoT] Jason]

a global impact is hard and could end in the destruction of the whole planet by the 2 super powers and their nukes

[Juliette]

And it won't happen anyway...

Don't be too sure..

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a ... _id=007FHn

[Cole]

Only thing that can get rid of humanity is an asteroid. And anyway, Security Council members would have some weapon to change its direction (or destroy it even!) and avoid earth's destruction.