But then they will have an even harder time supporting the kids...S.Lythberg wrote:
some sort of insanely high tax, isn't that what the chinese did?ThaReaper wrote:
I was just thinking the same exact thing, but would would they do if you had more then two children?S.Lythberg wrote:
as if any other non-insect species is anywhere near so prolific.
I say impose a two child max, to slowly reduce the population.
then don't have them...CommieChipmunk wrote:
But then they will have an even harder time supporting the kids...S.Lythberg wrote:
some sort of insanely high tax, isn't that what the chinese did?ThaReaper wrote:
I was just thinking the same exact thing, but would would they do if you had more then two children?
kids cost money
that's true, but that's terribly unfair for the kids..S.Lythberg wrote:
then don't have them...CommieChipmunk wrote:
But then they will have an even harder time supporting the kids...S.Lythberg wrote:
some sort of insanely high tax, isn't that what the chinese did?
kids cost money
I definitely see your point.. but as you said human race =/= sense
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-01-09 19:40:48)
thats always the worst part, do you pull a moocher off the public aid system when she has 5 kids?CommieChipmunk wrote:
that's true, but that's terribly unfair for the kids..S.Lythberg wrote:
then don't have them...CommieChipmunk wrote:
But then they will have an even harder time supporting the kids...
kids cost money
I definitely see your point.. but as you said human race =/= sense
there could always be some harsher punishment for breaking the limit, but not even a maniac like myself would support that... (maybe David.P)
I sometimes think like that too. There just isn't any place without some kind of problems.
If only I ruled, everybody would have kickass computers and lots of cheeseburgers and sunshine every freaking day.
I think the answer is human nature but I'm not sure. But there certainly is some crazy stuff going on in the world.
China men skin dogs alive to make furr to cheap coats to europeans etc.
If only I ruled, everybody would have kickass computers and lots of cheeseburgers and sunshine every freaking day.
I think the answer is human nature but I'm not sure. But there certainly is some crazy stuff going on in the world.
China men skin dogs alive to make furr to cheap coats to europeans etc.
I seriously belíeve that we need to create restrictions as to how many kids one can have. And not only China and India. But every country inte the whole world. The UN and the EU should make some kind of guide lines that every nation has to follow. 2 children per familiy is perfectly enough. (Unless you adopt ofourse).
And regarding the post.
I think that the world could be a much nicer place for everyone, but some of us have to sacrife quite a lot in order for that to happen. We, the people of the western world can't have the same standard of living as we do now, we can't have as high salaries, we can't use as many resources. This doesnt mean that we all have to go live in a cave though. But the question is, are you willing to abandon different aspects of your lifestyle in order for other less fortunate people to have a better life(style)?
I think I could do that, the only thing I would still like the ability to have is: Running water from the tap, electricity in my home, computer, heat in the winter. I dont really need a TV, a computer can in many ways replace that. And i dont need a car, Its a waste of money and natural resources.
So to achieve a kinder earth to live on and a healthier earth, I think we need so sacrifice a lot. We maybe have to go through economical depression etc. But it's worth it in the end.
I saw the movie Blood Diamond the other day, reading the post reminds me of someting Leo DiCaprio says in the movie:
"God left this place a long time ago..."
And regarding the post.
I think that the world could be a much nicer place for everyone, but some of us have to sacrife quite a lot in order for that to happen. We, the people of the western world can't have the same standard of living as we do now, we can't have as high salaries, we can't use as many resources. This doesnt mean that we all have to go live in a cave though. But the question is, are you willing to abandon different aspects of your lifestyle in order for other less fortunate people to have a better life(style)?
I think I could do that, the only thing I would still like the ability to have is: Running water from the tap, electricity in my home, computer, heat in the winter. I dont really need a TV, a computer can in many ways replace that. And i dont need a car, Its a waste of money and natural resources.
So to achieve a kinder earth to live on and a healthier earth, I think we need so sacrifice a lot. We maybe have to go through economical depression etc. But it's worth it in the end.
I saw the movie Blood Diamond the other day, reading the post reminds me of someting Leo DiCaprio says in the movie:
"God left this place a long time ago..."
Last edited by Snorkelfarsan (2008-01-09 20:07:36)
So why can't we have this utopia?
I'm with Agent Smith on all of this.
Greed
Selfishness
Nastiness
I see the above in myself but try to keep them under control. I think they are human nature and insoluble.
For the technological problems of disease, energy etc. I believe any advances will be swallowed by population growth, as they always have and are therefore more or less pointless.
We need to cut the world population by about 90% and either return to an agrarian model or solve fusion power and keep the population in check.
(Like 'Logans Run' - Jenny Agutter mmmm)
I'm with Agent Smith on all of this.
For the social problems.I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
Greed
Selfishness
Nastiness
I see the above in myself but try to keep them under control. I think they are human nature and insoluble.
For the technological problems of disease, energy etc. I believe any advances will be swallowed by population growth, as they always have and are therefore more or less pointless.
We need to cut the world population by about 90% and either return to an agrarian model or solve fusion power and keep the population in check.
(Like 'Logans Run' - Jenny Agutter mmmm)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The consequences of immediately stopping world poverty could be pretty big. Example: a country in Africa has borrowed money from the US. It needs to borrow more so it borrows from the US again. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. If this was to be evened out then the country in Africa could become stronger, and, while not entirely infeasible, be superior in comparison to America. They pretty much gave their selves a whole new trouble.
I'll all for helping the poor, but there are consequences too.
I'll all for helping the poor, but there are consequences too.
Over populated my ass. There is so much room Still left in Africa, China, South America, Canada, India and parts of the US to be called over populated.CommieChipmunk wrote:
It's terrifying to think about... but a pandemic will, unfortunately or not, probably solve that problem when we become too overpopulated though.S.Lythberg wrote:
reason why: global population ~7 billion
far too high, there simply isn't enough to go around
god help us when we hit 10 billion...
People are egoistic, selfish, individualistic and don't want to give their riches and power away just to help people on the other side of the world.
Room yes, food production no.Over populated my ass. There is so much room Still left in Africa, China, South America, Canada, India and parts of the US to be called over populated.
Which do you prefer, a small population living well or a large population in poverty and hunger?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
There are a LOT of species that are far more prolific. It's just that they die from predation and disease. They are largely at the whim of nature, unlike humans.S.Lythberg wrote:
as if any other non-insect species is anywhere near so prolific.
I say impose a two child max, to slowly reduce the population.
If people could get over the irrational fear of genetically modified plants and food, the area of viable food producing land would greatly increase.Dilbert_X wrote:
Room yes, food production no.Over populated my ass. There is so much room Still left in Africa, China, South America, Canada, India and parts of the US to be called over populated.
Which do you prefer, a small population living well or a large population in poverty and hunger?
@ OP
That's reality for you! Better get used to it.
That's reality for you! Better get used to it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-10 04:12:31)
I think that religion is ruining the world.