Over population is the major problem. The question is : How would you try to solve this problem?

Question

420
The world could handle a lot if individual polution if there were a lot fewer people.

There are some people who claim ,Falsely, that there is more than enough food grown but that is blatently untrue as there are a great many (most) people who are under nourished in the world and this is not just because we can't get the food to them.

We are stretching the limits of what the land can produce and not giving the land any ability to rest and recover.

We are at near or even past what the land can safely produce in the long run.

Already we are heavily fertilizing land to produce crops.
This is an indication that the land has gone past what it can naturally produce.

With the introduction of using land to grow bio-feul the proice of food crops that compete for that land has gone up.

Past crops that took longer to grow or were in some other way less 'economically feasable' (more expensive to grow, ship or had a limited market) have disappeared. Some strawberryies and grapes are examples, sure there are strawberries and grapes but not the same varieties as those no longer produced.

The idea that the planet can support 50 billion is ludicrous.

I know that I am mot likely to recieve anymore answers so I will probably put this to a vote.

I was looking for someone that thought like me and would allow the first child of a couple but after that tax the right to have children.

Hopefully I will get some thoughts on that Idea.

Answer 1

treating only the first born as equals [ that does not include me ] because everyone deserves to make a mistake even teenage mothers but after that you are a welfare sponge no different than a corporate wealth fare sponge and using up resources and treat the second born as second class citizens and so on, i seem to recall the old testament saying that the first born belong to GOD so then we can all agree that it would be better to control the worlds population by rewarding only the first born by being treated equal in every way, no matter how rich or how poor. and the old testament also says the most beautiful place in the world was the garden of Eden but it only had 1 person and then GOD added 2 and then what happened? it was gone! so if we reward only the first born we encourage people to put all their eggs in to one basket as in the first child and one child is twice as rich as two! and has half the chance to go without food or water or clothes or an over crowded school!

Answer 2

The sad truth is no one in the world starves because there is not enough food. Someone has to make the choice to deny them food. Maybe it is war, maybe it is land owners selling their crops at higher prices to other countries.

Population is a problem, but not really yet. The real problem is 7 Billion can't live to the same standard as the rich countries. We can't all own cars, live in houses and pollute without consequence. In addition poor countries are the ones with fast growing populations.

The easiest way is to increase the status of women. When women have the same social status as men, generally they choose to have small families. Korea, Japan, Europe, USA etc have small families.

Teach people, educate and the population will be sustainable.

Answer 3

Currently if we distributed the worlds food source as equitablity as possible I'd say we would have a basic Army diet for everyone, BUT everyone would have to learn to eat foods they don't like or go without.

If there are not enough potatoes you'd have to learn to like leeks or similar white starches.

This means, basically a Banquet TV dinner for everyone 3 times a day.

You'd then have to step up food production to meet the future needs in 2050.

ONE way I would solve the problem is by space colonization. It's a long shot, but problems generate solutions and if man can learn to "make" water and air it would help to restore the Earth's eco balance as well.

We would HAVE to lick this problem if we were to colonize Mars, for example, otherwise we'd be shipping LOX and Water taken from the Earth like we take Oil.

You would also have to start agriculture and animal husbandry.

We should know enough about the biosphere to actually do this.

It would require sending enough Air and Water to Mars to get started. Then you build algea pools, grow kelp, plankton, trees, shrubs bushes.

You design these to be CO2 soaks (trees at night) and O2 releasers (trees in daytime).

You create an eco system that actually generates a filtered flow of water and air.

Theortically you can hold a balance as long as you don't pollute the biosphere with contaminants.

But the key is making water and air out of inorganic or organic compounds.

YOu are successful at this you can start moving people from Earth to Mars

It would take 1 million or more years to totally populate Mars.

By then the human race would be in the tens of billions.

The Earth can maybe handle 50 billion. I can't see much more effectively living on Earth unless you go subterranian.

Answer 4

I love this guy blamming the west. Does not a third world country like China/India have 2/3 of the popuplation.

I would say natural selection. Let people die don't try to save them. If we would act like the rest of the species on the planet, we wouldn't have an overpolution problem. Let the weak and meak die. Technology has led to overpopulation, people are living longer and we cure every disease that comes up.

Don't worry next time a asteroid hits the earth, we will have major cleansing

Answer 5

I have always said that the human species has become a cancer in the body of this over-pressured Planet. It was once finely and beautifully balanced as a result of millions of years gradual process towards that state. Man has committed more devastation and destruction within his own nest in the last couple hundred years, than all other living species put together, in the whole of its planetary history.
There are plenty of signs that Mother Nature has started to fight back, and she has some serious weapons in her arsenal that she wont hesitate to deploy if we don't wake up, and voluntarily begin to police our own bad behaviours. Like it or not, a time is going to have to come where we MUST stop this reckless and wilful (and it seems accellerating) reproduction. I guarantee that, one way or the other, if we don't do it, the planet itself will.

Answer 6

Right now we are allowing three million immigrants a year to enter the United States. I would decrease this limit to no more than one million. I would also send all the illegals back to where they came from. The Mexican border problem is being accessed. Some traditions need to be destroyed. Let's take care of our fellow Americans first and then worry about 'feeding the world.'

HANK (Josh)

Answer 7

Maybe we should go the Chinese method. One child per family. Or two rather. This method of theirs has proven to cut down on the Chinese population growth which was getting quite large. It may seem like a blatant invasion on personal freedom, etc. but its a proven method. Maybe people should just shut-up and realise that there isn't always a nice way to deal with problems.

Answer 8

You must be referring to 3rd world countries. The sad fact is, and I'm not trying to be rude, is that those people are not the brightest, birth control would solve many problems, there would be less kids born to a life of starvation. But these people keep having babies, so there you have it. Our donations would be better spent on educating these people but it seems they don't listen ?

Answer 9

There would be enough food if the average westerner didn't eat about double what he actually needed.

The simple solution is not to produce any vaccine against bird flu - then let nature decide how to reduce the population

Answer 10

a man should be required to get a vasectomy after so many children, say 2 or 3. same goes for women, they should have their tubes tied after 2 or 3 children.