Is the Depopulation of the Earth the Solution?
-
Nobody's doing active, deliberate depopulation at the moment, although everybody's doing so without realizing it. But still population growth is still awfully high everywhere. The earth is finite; no room for unlimited growth. An aggressive one-child (or even two-child only) policy might be necessary. Anything as long as it reduces the amount of humans entering the world.
Of course, our problems doesn't stop with overpopulation, but also ecological impact. Even though advanced countries have less people, they tend to have a greater ecological impact (destroying the environment more) than third world countries... so we also need to campaign for an environmentally benign way of life. No more SUVs, no more intensive air travel.
Or we could keep doing what we do and wait for Thomas Malthus' prediction to come true. In his book 'Collapse' Jared Diamond speculated that the Rwanda genocides has been one example of a Malthusian disaster.
-
Or we could keep doing what we do and wait for Thomas Malthus' prediction to come true. In his book 'Collapse' Jared Diamond speculated that the Rwanda genocides has been one example of a Malthusian disaster.
I heard about Thomas Malthus once. Can you explain what are his theories?
-
Basicallu, Malthus said that population growth, if left unchecked, will overtake food production, and disasters such as wars and famine would follow.
So either we use unnatural means to limit population growth (birth control, etc.) or we leave things as it is and let the 'natural' means do its job to limit our population growth. By natural means I mean conflicts, starvation, etc.
-
Peace,
We need to develop self reproducing nano robots which can fly in outer space, utilize the material from asteroids, meteors etc and assemble a large number of spaceships where we all can get on, travel near the speed of light, leave the earth alone for 200million years and then come back. We may be surprised to see a new intelligent creature having evolved which may also have developed spacecraft or technology we couldnt even dream of. GOD Bless! -
Peace,
We need to develop self reproducing nano robots which can fly in outer space, utilize the material from asteroids, meteors etc and assemble a large number of spaceships where we all can get on, travel near the speed of light, leave the earth alone for 200million years and then come back. We may be surprised to see a new intelligent creature having evolved which may also have developed spacecraft or technology we couldnt even dream of. GOD Bless!Have you ever considered to become a science-fiction writer brother? You will make a good one I tell you D. Anyway, that is one interesting imagination you have there.
-
Isn't Malthus also the same person who says that helping the poor is worthless because as the population grows, poverty will also grow?
I think it's more along the lines of "it's not much use trying to increase food production, because it would just induce more population growth and nobody's condition gets better"
Therefore, the Green Revolution, better health care, GM foods, etc. doesn't help solve our problems.
-
peace
depopulation is a great benefit,but not in the ways of wars and epidemics....lets start having less kids or NO kids and lets adopt more until in a century we will see a huge change,i myself have chose to never have kids unless God wants...
peace peace peace peace peace peace peace
-
peace
depopulation is a great benefit,but not in the ways of wars and epidemics....lets start having less kids or NO kids and lets adopt more until in a century we will see a huge change,i myself have chose to never have kids unless God wants...
peace peace peace peace peace peace peace
Hmm, your adoption idea is really great. I can't believe I never thought of that.
I have always planned to have three kids. But now my plan is that one of them is biological and the two others are adopted. -
Nobody's doing active, deliberate depopulation at the moment, although everybody's doing so without realizing it. But still population growth is still awfully high everywhere. The earth is finite; no room for unlimited growth. An aggressive one-child (or even two-child only) policy might be necessary. Anything as long as it reduces the amount of humans entering the world.
I think the the depopulation plans are covert right now and soon to put into action. I look at the wars and hostility being generated between different religions, countries, and races as a campaign to divide us so that we don't see what is really happening. The link below goes into some of the ideas and I found it interesting.
http//www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/94percent.htmPat
-
I remember watching a program on Al-Jazeera about couples in the Middle East traveling for fertility treatments. I was surprised to find out that Lebanon and Iran allowed sperm donations. The Iranian government also funds for sex change operations which is odd since sharia is implemented in the country.
I was annoyed about the fact that people in Gaza wanted really big families, Gaza is one of the most overcrowded places on earth and so many children are condemned to a life in severe poverty, having so many kids is financially demanding, so having one or two children is a sensible option but having half a dozen is insane in such circumstances.
Their culture is also partially to blame for that since the concept of a childless couple is alien and considered shameful.
They showed one couple who could not have a baby because the man had fertility problems, the lady was relieved that it was her husband who had the fertility problems and not her because if she had the fertility problems his family would put pressure on him to leave her (!!).
Here in the UK many Muslims have massive families, which is absurd since statistically Muslims are the poorest.
-
One of the reasons that almost all cultures around the world tend to favour large families is that they started as agricultural societies in mostly unworked lands. Having a lot of kinds means having more people to work on the field, plus having 'insurance' in case some of the kids didn't make it into adulthood (due to disease, famine, accidents, wars, etc.) A couple with lots of kids can predict that at least some of their kids will grow up and take care of them in their old age; a couple with few kids might suffer in their old age if they happen to lose all their children.
It's a cultural adaptation, really, which has become less relevant in our present circumstances.
Maybe that's why I've read somewhere that pensions is one way to save humanity's future. With pensions, a person might not need kids to support him/her in old age.
-
Yes but for succussful pensions there has to be a lot of economic and population growth, there always needs to be more younger people than older people and the trend isn't going that way in societies where pensions are better established.
-
Peace
I don't think the problem is really that more children are being born - its just that the population as an average across the globe is actually getting older.
People arent dying fast enough at the moment. Although I do agree, having fewer children is a great idea. The problem we have is that these sorts of laws are more likely to be implemented in the developing world as their governments are pressured by the developed world. I have a child, and he is a brilliant kiddo. When you have one - and understand how they can make you feel as a person - you are more likely as a family to have more...
anyway - just my brain-emptying moment for now...
darcus