2006-09-28 15:46:29 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Contraceptives in drinking water.
2006-09-28 15:53:52 · answer #1 · answered by stevewbcanada 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that the world is over populated. However, I believe that resources are not distributed fairly around the world, not just resources such as food and medical supples but information as well. Corruption around the world is also a problem which affects many developing countries.
Population growth in many developed countries is actually almost in decline.
Is overpopulation in some parts of the world a problem or is it an effect from a different problem? I think overpopulation in parts of the world is a consequence of larger social problems such as i mentioned above and these should be reviewed and dealt with.
2006-09-29 11:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by Sam B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think overpopulation is a problem. I would say the opposite is true. As countries industrialize and modernize the population growth slows. This is seen in Japan, Taiwan, Western Europe and North America. If and when other parts of the world become more modernized (by the Western standard) their population growths will slow, just as ours has.
2006-09-28 22:52:55 · answer #3 · answered by Edward 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Have the UN mandate what China has been doing -- maximum of two children per family and that's it. Make it illegal to breed any more than necessary. If people are exceedingly bored then I suggest they get a new hobby of sorts to keep themselves busy with.
Starting more wars isn't a bad idea either.
2006-10-02 02:55:43 · answer #4 · answered by daryavaush 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was a big believer in ZPG (Zero Population Growth) in the 60's but things have changed. Many countries are actually in population decline and are pressing the citizens to reproduce. The USA only maintains its population (actually slow growth) through immigration.
2006-09-28 22:54:39 · answer #5 · answered by ChazS 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The world is not overpopulated and, is in fact, moving towards a point of population stabilization.
EDIT: Gotta love the ignorant dumbsh1ts that thumbs down an absolute fact. Look it up, fvcktards.
One last thing, GardnerConsulting, you're a complete and utter, ignorant moron.
2006-09-28 22:49:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You will not like my answer nor will a lot of people, but ...
We need to act like in the wild. Process of Natural Selection, only the strongest survive. In other words we need to stop sending aid to these countries that are dying of starvation. Not only would it help with that but also help our economy. Have you seen how bad our deficit is? CAn we really afford to help these countries? Yes, it seems good to help people survive but at what cost? Are we going to raise these children too? Maybe this is God's (if you believe in him) way of weeding out the people. Maybe he wants that land only for the animals. SOmetimes people dying are natures way. We need to stop interfering sometimes.
2006-09-28 23:26:51 · answer #7 · answered by The Ultimate Nerd 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
have overpopulated countries' governments reward childless couples with money. I think the US should try it
2006-09-29 04:06:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Give birth control pills to all of the third world countries, no offense, but they are the only one's who seem to be able to produce multiple children, which we all are saving because they either starve or their parents die of Aids. The cicilized world is down to 2.3 children.
2006-09-28 22:55:33 · answer #9 · answered by Mightymo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that it will eventually take care of its self. When people get to close together and began to deplete the resources faster than they are replenished, mother nature will show its ugly side and slap us back to a manageable state.
2006-09-28 22:56:45 · answer #10 · answered by pigment 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nuclear holocaust.
Genocide.
Eternal war.
Colonisation of the Moon.
In short, nothing practical.
2006-09-28 22:55:08 · answer #11 · answered by Codes G 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋