[Un]natural Selection?
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:27 am
With the estimations of having a world population reaching the 10 billions by the end of this century, there has to be measures taken. This is the result of some topics coming from this & that, that I came up with that.
Some will bring crazy ideas like select a certain type of people and wipe the rest. It's unacceptable. Some others will say, it's horrible to do anything there, noone has right to do anything about it, then they'll realize their mistake when world will collapse.
So we are infront of surviving of the planet and also political correctness. How to find a solution that meets BOTH of them?
It's easy.
European Union, Japan, Australia and Russia are surely not "guilty" in the growth. Some of them have almost negative population growth. Principal "guilty" ones are south Asia, Central Asia, Africa and South America.
What caracterize them? High born rates, high but decreasing death rates, growing up life lasting, not for all. So death rate decreases, and as good as it sounds, it has also bad effects: population sky rockets.
Help coming from "Western" Countries is big part of that developpement.
I've came up with an idea.
Unlike that thing being all given nothing giving, how about making them a deal like:
"If you decrease your birth rates to below 2.2 children by family, we'll give more help to develop and increase your health systems and eventually economy. However, if you carry on with >3/family, we'll stop every aid and you'll have to deal with it".
Sounds unfair?
Think a bit.
They make the population grow to a level we'll not be able to feed people anymore.
They'll screw their own countries food reserves as their countries aren't always a good weather to keep growing up cultures.
By having that much children, the aid is less effective, so it condemns all of them, by giving almost no help because too much are around, and giving more would be silly, for above reasons, IF those countries don't do efforts of course. If they do, they'll deserve more help, as a "gift", BUT will have to keep under or on the ~2.2/family.
So it's a less strict idea than China's one about birth, find myself one child per family is bit exagerated sometimes, so 2.2 is good, not saying your third one will have his/her hands/legs cut OF COURSE, just like average would be that. Majority of 2/family, some 1/family, and few 3/family.
My system would give better results as fewer poeple would be there, more effective feeding, more effective schools (not crazy amounts of people per class etc).
Let's talk on it, if you don't understand anything, ask away
That would probably solve the problem of crazy growth. To decrease world population however, that's too much risky thing to talk about, I prefer to remain on decreasing alot the growth!
"Help us, and we'll help you", is the idea's slogan, from rich countries to poor one, make less children, and then we'll help you develop your economy and help your EXISTING people, BUT NO crossing of the limit, otherwise, all goes away.
Why this title?
To find an alternate "less radical" solution to the problem, which is political correct.
Some will bring crazy ideas like select a certain type of people and wipe the rest. It's unacceptable. Some others will say, it's horrible to do anything there, noone has right to do anything about it, then they'll realize their mistake when world will collapse.
So we are infront of surviving of the planet and also political correctness. How to find a solution that meets BOTH of them?
It's easy.
European Union, Japan, Australia and Russia are surely not "guilty" in the growth. Some of them have almost negative population growth. Principal "guilty" ones are south Asia, Central Asia, Africa and South America.
What caracterize them? High born rates, high but decreasing death rates, growing up life lasting, not for all. So death rate decreases, and as good as it sounds, it has also bad effects: population sky rockets.
Help coming from "Western" Countries is big part of that developpement.
I've came up with an idea.
Unlike that thing being all given nothing giving, how about making them a deal like:
"If you decrease your birth rates to below 2.2 children by family, we'll give more help to develop and increase your health systems and eventually economy. However, if you carry on with >3/family, we'll stop every aid and you'll have to deal with it".
Sounds unfair?
Think a bit.
They make the population grow to a level we'll not be able to feed people anymore.
They'll screw their own countries food reserves as their countries aren't always a good weather to keep growing up cultures.
By having that much children, the aid is less effective, so it condemns all of them, by giving almost no help because too much are around, and giving more would be silly, for above reasons, IF those countries don't do efforts of course. If they do, they'll deserve more help, as a "gift", BUT will have to keep under or on the ~2.2/family.
So it's a less strict idea than China's one about birth, find myself one child per family is bit exagerated sometimes, so 2.2 is good, not saying your third one will have his/her hands/legs cut OF COURSE, just like average would be that. Majority of 2/family, some 1/family, and few 3/family.
My system would give better results as fewer poeple would be there, more effective feeding, more effective schools (not crazy amounts of people per class etc).
Let's talk on it, if you don't understand anything, ask away
That would probably solve the problem of crazy growth. To decrease world population however, that's too much risky thing to talk about, I prefer to remain on decreasing alot the growth!
"Help us, and we'll help you", is the idea's slogan, from rich countries to poor one, make less children, and then we'll help you develop your economy and help your EXISTING people, BUT NO crossing of the limit, otherwise, all goes away.
Why this title?
To find an alternate "less radical" solution to the problem, which is political correct.
