So I have already asked the question about populating other suitable planets, but until we can travel at the spped of sound, or use worm holes or bend space and time to get to where we need to be, what is the realistic short term answer. Do we wish a planetery disaster upon ourselves, and hope as an individual we are one of the lucky ones. Do we wish secretly for another world war. Do we stand by and watch people starve to death in the developing countries.Do we release a worldwide pox,plague or viral problem, and wait for natural choice/nature, to decide who lives and who dies.
I don't know, do you?
2006-06-26 22:22:54 · 15 answers · asked by simonc12345 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
A very serious question? and one that is not lightly answered, you have said it all in your quesiton, and I don't anyone can improve on what you have stated.
We are all in the dark.
What to do?
What to do?
2006-06-26 22:27:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
The ethical answer to over population is for human beings as a species to choose to have fewer children and to treat the ones we do have better.
Too many kids are being created by people who don't have the resources or ability to raise them properly. More people need to choose to be childless and nobody should have more than 2 kids.
This needs to be a voluntary cultural shift as it is unethical for governments etc to decide who gets to breed.
Our culture worships people who raise families, but brushes over the children who are neglected or damaged by their families. We need to culturally make choosing to live without children more socially acceptable.
In the end though it isn't the number of people so much as the resources we use. One child growing up in a developed nation uses 20 times the resources of a child growing up in a developing nation; that child will never wear brand name running shoes, be driven to school in an SUV or eat fast food from a styrofoam box.
2006-06-27 00:13:56 · answer #2 · answered by SmartBlonde 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Chinese/ Japanese (can't remember which) limit the amount of children their populace can have as they have to have a licence. i think it's one per person
the only other way i could think of is a vasectomy at birth leaving nothing to chance. but then you encounter the problem of an ageing generation that has a large generation gap. so would it be more sensible to kill the old as then it wouldn't upset the balance of birth to death ratio??
i think a worldwide virus is a little harsh but it would continue the process of evolution by natural selection by thinning out the populace and leaving only the strong.
the possibility's are endless lets hope it doesn't have to be that way.
is there an ethicly viable way of dealing with this subject??
2006-06-26 22:51:06 · answer #3 · answered by G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is there truly an answer to this. Probably rationally there are many. To solve this problem is relatively easy, we have all the answers and abilities.
The issue is the human heart, whether we want to embark on such a task. Overpopulation isnt a problem, its the results from it. For e.g. poverty. Having a lot of everyone, having my share of the pie getting smaller aint the problem. We have the ability to make the pie bigger, the problem is making it. Everyone constantly have the thought bout "whats in it for me", if we take it on a global scale, that's the problem.
2006-06-26 22:44:57 · answer #4 · answered by Weicheng X 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's up to individual government to decide. International bodies like the UN can make recommendations but as the UN does not have any legislative powers it can't enforce decisions without the agreement of individual states.
A couple of things to think about:
1) Positive education on family planning, morals, etc.
2) Reduction of waste and carbon footprint of individuals and communities.
Don't even think of trying to decide who has more of a right to live and who doesn't. The Nazis tried to do just that...
2006-06-26 22:33:26 · answer #5 · answered by k² 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Increase the use of crops that yield more calories per acre. If people would take up vegetarianism on a mass scale, we would be able to easily feed billions more people. Growing crops like corn, wheat, rice or potatoes gives you a calorie yield per acre that is around ten times what you get for grazing cattle. Imagine being able to feed ten times as many people in the world! It's really an awesome solution.
2006-06-26 22:28:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best we can do is to provide sexual education and birth control to all of the world's people. If we can decrease the birth rate by enough, we may be able to buy ourselves a few hundred years before we run out of resources.
2006-06-26 22:27:48 · answer #7 · answered by Not Allie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only real solution is to slow down on baby production. The question of ethics arises from how we get people to start doing this. In the end we're all too selfish.
2006-06-26 22:30:51 · answer #8 · answered by Stammerman! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
actually we will never reach the said overpopulation of the planet because if der r babies born der are some people who die... its the nature who controls the population i think?, regarding to the planet that we might discover as same of this earth, dnt worry ur grandchildren may knew it then.... and they will also visit the new discoved planet
2006-06-26 22:43:41 · answer #9 · answered by SAM 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Require those choosing to have children to support them completely themselves and not rely upon others, charities or the government for subsidies.
2006-06-26 22:29:20 · answer #10 · answered by Witchy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Birth control, educate, offer free sterilization.
Basically a town clinic would do for the most part...
2006-06-27 03:21:16 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋