| Do you agree with Paul Theroux, when he says: "one of the biggest problem in the world is over-population" |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by infinit0  Portugal |
|
About
Genious!
I prove a way, to kept attention.;)
I'm a good guy. Engineer. Curious. Good sense of humor.
|
7 Points
|
Totally agree!!!
Not really. The biggest problem is bad distribution of resources (e.g., Montana - lots of land; few people. Hong Kong - lots of people; little land).
Given a certain level of prosperity and technology, people voluntarily limit the birth rate. Parts of Europe have NEGATIVE birth rates as a result of their standard of living. So the problem is not too many people, it is too few people sequestering too much of the resources, and too many people not having enough.
Still, if there were 50% less people we would have 50% more resources to share! :O
Sure. But if we share the resources we have, it will happen anyway--and it won't smell as bad as four billion rotting corpses.--Which, given the disease that would cause, would further drastically reduce the population. It wouldn't be possible to keep clean water flowing, not even here--150 million bodies!!
A) Feed them to the fishes
B) Put them on fire
C) Soylent Green
A) too late, we have already killed most of the fish in the ocean; and it wouldn't be safe to eat the surviving fish for the same reason you don't feed sheep to sheep.
B)That much smoke would mimic a climate-changing eruption, or many such eruptions; maybe even a nuclear winter. Besides, it is stupid to reduce the population and then use the energy savings to destroy the corpses. Might as well let 'em live.
C) There is a reason people shouldn't eat people. I refer you to kore, scrapie, Creutzfeldt-Jakov, to name a few of the horrors; but, unlike every other kind of food in the world, only in human meat is every lurking disease transmissible to humans.
Well the surviving fish population would surly rise as a result, we are already feeding fish with fish, and fish have gotten fat on humans before.
Bah, there is your problem, this ridiculous short thinking "Might as well let 'em live" attitude.. you are not solving any problems
I already covered that--redistribute resources and th4e population will go down.
I gotta say, all these "reduce the population 50%" types somehow never mean that to include themselves. Are you volunteering?
Don't know who "Paul Theroux" is, but I do agree there are too many people on this planet.
I think there are too many people - not just for environmental reasons but also i think it is causing a break down in society.
Although, saying that - there are many ways we can cut down on waste in order to fuel this ever growing population that we find ourselves in. For example; deep sea fishing can be very damaging to eco systems and then tonnes and tonnes of the fish are thrown dead back into the sea because they are not the type required or because they caught over the days quota... but at the same time there are millions of people starving, and we are in a recession :-S
This could also cause a genetic bottle neck within the species eventually leading to it's extinction, even if we do allow fish supplies time to replenish - but that is off the point (!)
Surely the recent news of the influenza virus is also enough to draw attention to the fact that we live in incredibly crowded, densely packed cities, and this situation is not ideal.
There are many many reasons, and i think that it truly IS one of the biggest challenges we face, for a variety of reasons.
yes and the worst thing is that poor countries dont think about that, and they must they should to think seriously about that. No enough space for so much people in the planet, no enough resources!!
There aren't enough people on Earth. And maybe one of those people who are a "problem" will grow up to save thousands of lives. Also if something big happens, like the Swine Flu, we will still have enough survivors to save the human race from extinction.