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

quick fix ? how about decreasing the population as a way of easing the burden on the enviroment.
Perhaps only one child per 2 parents untill we level out a bit.

2006-09-09 11:10:03 · 11 answers · asked by LordLogic 3 in Environment

11 answers

Not likely to have much effect. Most climate change models are conservative about projected population growth. Also, the climate change effects we are likely to experience over the next 50 to 100 years are due to the existing population and it's use of global resources, that is to say, THIS generation. Limiting the growth of the next few generations may be unnecessary if some of the worst-case scenarios come to pass as the population of the planet will be significantly reduced by the 'natural' disasters that are created by the effects of climate change.

2006-09-09 11:20:01 · answer #1 · answered by blank 3 · 0 0

Strange but not many people realise that when the dinosaurs were around, they all wore sunglasses and hawaiian shits and shorts with flipflops and sandals... the english ones wore socks too...
But anyway, the volcano's back then were hundreds! Thousands! And they were gushing millions of tonnes of ash and dust and pollutants into the air on a larger scale then we can imagine since we don't have as many volcanos anymore.

But after all this pollution had reached a certain point and the icecaps melted, it created an imbalance in the salt/fresh water equation which stopped the north atlantic current, which pretty much stops the ice from the artic expanding down over the continents. Well, since it did stop, this explains the ice-age.

So, pollute all you want and then we can have new animal species and such and it will be Christmas in -150 every day!

... until the earth heals itself and has killed off 3/4 of the human population

2006-09-09 11:33:48 · answer #2 · answered by Alex H 2 · 0 0

I am not of the opinion that the majority are responsible for the damage done to this planets ecosystem and there isn't a "Quick Fix". Did you know that USA alone between 1945 and 1963 detonated 335 Atomic devices or that an area three times the size of the UK is burned every year in the rain forests which are the Lungs of the planet. Countries that will not even acknowledge that they are in the least bit responsible for the damage they do for the sake of a Dollar... Quick fix I don't think so.

2006-09-09 11:27:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not a bad idea...i assume you came up with this idea all by yourself. Have you considered that someone else might have dreamed up this idea before you? What happened in the Philippines after the introduction of Catholicism? And now, what is the un-official plan there to handle over population? Hmm-m. In China what is their plan under the communist regime? In India what are their normal considerations regarding the sex of offspring?

Since this is probably your own individual idea,
what means would you use to implement a population program such as limiting the number of children per family? How would you popularize such a program, implement it, and patrol compliance with the program?
What would be the penalties for non-compliance? Would you implement a surgical cure to the problem?

2006-09-10 10:28:10 · answer #4 · answered by zahbudar 6 · 0 0

humans have only been here 5 mins how can we know how the world works ? the earth has been through many climate changes so this is nothing new - I see it as the earths way of managing its population there is little we can do to stop it! a good test could be for whole world to switch ALL elecrical items off when not needed or ground all aircraft for a year and ban all CARS!

2006-09-09 11:35:31 · answer #5 · answered by LMo 1 · 1 0

It is too late for that, she said, in Doomsayer mode. We have well and truly messed up.

But another part of her brain argued that maybe this idea is worth considering . . .

Nonsense, said yet another part of the brain. One child per two parents - does that mean set of parents? Or two sets of parents?

There is no way you are going to achieve that without bloodshed and the use of the nuclear bomb. People are programmed to reproduce, and to do so in spite of whatever happens.

Same problem with my favourite solution - to ship at least half of us off to Mars. Everyone will believe that someone else needs to go.

So the same selfishness that got us into this mess will keep us there.

Keep thinking. You are bound to come up with something devious enough eventually.

2006-09-09 11:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by Delora Gloria 4 · 0 0

There is no quick fix, anything we stop today will still affect the environment as we have no way of removing carbon dioxide from the carbon cycle.

2006-09-10 02:19:11 · answer #7 · answered by Tim 2 · 0 0

good idea,..lets start with pakistan as they seem to have about 50 kids per couple,..thats way too much man !!
soon they will be taking over the earth !!

2006-09-09 11:16:13 · answer #8 · answered by cassey s 3 · 0 0

nah we just need to get america to sign the anti pollution treaty that the rest of the world signed

2006-09-09 11:11:53 · answer #9 · answered by KEV D 3 · 1 0

Just go with the flow and ride it out, baby.

2006-09-09 11:32:12 · answer #10 · answered by Kango Man 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers