English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Suppose each child when born,receives a lifetime allotment of units
of environmental degradation ( I'll call them NIMBYS) They would be deducted for use of energy, chemicals and any pollution.
If they carelessly used them up, they would have to go to a sort of monastery to earn them back (eg:gardening,recycling ,research
and generally work to help the earth recover our damage

2006-07-05 06:09:44 · 10 answers · asked by junebcycle 1 in Social Science Other - Social Science

10 answers

in honesty not bad idea and if we dont do something soon it may come to this.....however,it doesnt have to...we do have options that would provide endless fuel resources as well as decreasing the damage that burning fuel causes to the earth...with the ice caps melting and filtration we can always maintain a water supply....being in controll of our food supplies(growing fruits/vegtables and breeding a wide variety of animals) allows us to continue a decent supply of food as well as clothing and other various items recieved from animals......we just need to learn to be more responcible as individuals..

2006-07-05 06:36:19 · answer #1 · answered by alss03 2 · 0 0

I belive a more efficent way to save the environment is to have more people adopting recycle plans and control irresponsible pollution. Though, rationing resources would be a great idea, but I think you do some more research, you'll find that outside of the United States, many nations are already proceed with some type of mandatory rationing on natrual resources.

2006-07-05 06:22:03 · answer #2 · answered by zhan l 1 · 0 0

I think this solution is both ridiculous and immoral. If you think rationing anything is the answer, than you are essentially promoting socialism and communism. A child is owed nothing, other than what his/her parents are willling to provide. Where would these resources come from? Who would be stolen from for this purpose? How would it be distributed? Even if you figured a way to put this into practice, what would prevent every parent from having 15 babies, to get more "resources"? Over-population would be rampant and there would be no longer enough resources to sustain life. There would be massive famine and war. This sort of short-sighted thinking is exactly what causes such poverty in communist, socialistic, and dictatorship-run countries today. Look to Africa. Look to North Korea. Look to Cuba. Their people are suffering because of these types of irrational ideas, driven by ideals which are misguided and immoral.

2006-07-05 06:19:55 · answer #3 · answered by david ngo 1 · 0 0

You may be astounded to know that is very close to what actually happens everytime a child is born. The only difference is that no one divides them evenly, and no one is in charge of seeing that they get used properly.

The resources of this earth are really and truely alloted among all the residents of the planet, and the law of supply and demand does the allocations, while the law of natural consequences determines the end results.

2006-07-05 13:33:40 · answer #4 · answered by Yarnlady_needsyarn 7 · 0 0

The same objective can be achieved with much lower administrative costs by taxing pollution and energy use.

2006-07-05 06:16:34 · answer #5 · answered by NC 7 · 0 0

Can't be done....except via 'emergencies....and 'most' that 'live' in such a nation/country want to get more out of life so in those nations that 'ration' have a powerfull/large' BLACK-MARKET EXISTING.....rationing is only 'good' when mom/dad makes sure everybody gets aprox. the same amount of ice-cream/pie/favorite veg's/meats/herring/etc.....

2006-07-05 06:33:46 · answer #6 · answered by BILL P 3 · 0 0

Rather severely reduce the Global population.

2006-07-05 06:29:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think this would probably end up causeing wars because you know that there will be some country that disagrees and rebells.

2006-07-05 06:14:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Impossible. Who would administer this?

2006-07-05 06:14:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

g

2006-07-05 06:12:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers