DO you think world population needs to be drastically reduced by any means?

Question

i mean we are all just pissing each other off daily.......reduce population and spread out i say

Answer 1

There is a document from the Roman era (ascribed of course to Cicero, but almost certainly not him) that worries that there are too many people on the Earth. They were worried that they would never be able to produce enough crops to carry on feeding people.

What they actually found out was that the more people there were, the more food we were able to grow. That has been true for about the past two-thousand years.

Nature will let us know when there are too many people - it will start killing some off, and prevent others from breeding. This is known as the 'carrying capacity', and in a human degree, was analysed by Thomas Malthus in the 19th Century.

Perhaps the number of gay and otherwise 'unreproductive' (i.e. unlikely to have their own kids, either through disease or inclination) is one of nature's little ways of doing this. So... shall we kill them all Edward? No. Nature will do it for us.

Answer 2

Hello, I believe that the population must not diminish drastically, at least worldwide; rather it treats that we are capable of arranging the immense resources and surpluses which we have. It is clear that this that I describe is an ideal situation through that unfortunately we do not live (we would need political common worldwide); so, being realists, in the least developed countries, which are those who possess major population, they should interfere contraceptive, also as measurement to attack the AIDS (that spreads there as a plague) and to be stopping the loose demographic growth; whereas in the developed ones we would need to promote the birthrate and immigration with political social, thinking about the half and long term, especially in the pensions.

Answer 3

Indeed! It is a commonly known fact that the Earth is in fact overpopulated by humans, and our increasingly demanding (and selfish) needs for luxuries is also taxing on the planet. Our natural ressources and fossil fuels are drying out, other lifeforms are dying and becoming extinct, etc...

For DECADES I have been saying that something has to be done before it is too late. But I fear it IS too late now. By some calculations, within the next 50 years we humans will have exhausted enough ressources to cause major "shut downs" and the Earth will begin to "retaliate".

I wouldn't say we need to reduce the population "by any means" but something deffinatly must be done. Thoughts range from anything from controlled births to "suicide/death camps", and even passing through the idea of people offing each other off on live TV for general reality TV entertainment. But the truth is that no one would be ready to sacrifice themselves for the better of the planet. We're not talking about a few hundreds of people here, we are talking about thousands upon thousands of humans which need to be "taken care of".

Plus, next comes the question of who has the right to choose who should be exterminated and who doesn't. What kind of criteria should we be looking for? And of course, un-natural selection has always been a subject for heated debate.

Radically reduce the amount of humans on the planet? YES ! But by all means? Ethical issues arrise...

Answer 4

Nope, plenty for everyone, just remember that the gross product of the Earth belongs to the inhabitants of Earth and not any corporation. Read "Critical Path" by R. B. Fuller and you will see that everything we are buying from everybody already belongs to us...Spend Wisely, build a rocket to send the politicians and religious leaders on a vacation... to the sun!

Answer 5

Sure , and our governments are working on the problem every day . Bird-flu , e-bola , aids , new forms of cancer , we can thank our governments for researching these diseases . If somekind of population control is not set up , there will be no place to grow food . Remember " Soylent Green " is people !!

Answer 6

Yeah. Sure. Starting with voluntary euthanasea, by the most passionate proponanants of population reduction.Sounds fair, don't you think? So step up and take a number, and lets begin....(I'll go after you--*promise*....)

Answer 7

While I do believe that overreproduction is at the root of most of our problems today I do take issue with the term "any means".

Answer 8

Culled is a better word and it would help with the food shortage if we could come up with some good recipes.

Answer 9

there are more populated area and there are also more unpopulated area in this earth...

we don't need to reduce our growth population...

Answer 10

actually, i read that the opposite is true. having more people would make life better for everyone.