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

2007-02-02 05:43:55 · 12 answers · asked by Rose 2 in Environment

12 answers

Nothing NEEDS to be done,

Nature has a way of solving problems like this.


When the population of a species reaches a point that the environment can't support them, they start dying off thill teh population becomes manageable

2007-02-02 05:52:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

The entire population of the planet could be housed in the state of Texas with a resulting population density two and a half times smaller than Paris, France. There is no overpopulation.

2007-02-02 13:59:09 · answer #2 · answered by Dr.T 4 · 0 0

I don't think anything is being done. It seems women of child bearing age think nothing of having five or six kids before they turn thirty. In the world today it is hard raising one so I don't know if they don't know about birth control or they are choosing to have them. The doctors want to medicate everyone in their forties so they can stay alive till they are ninety-nine a waste of a good life I think. With these two things overpopulation is going to get worse but I don't think many are worried about it.

2007-02-02 14:05:43 · answer #3 · answered by puzzled 5 · 0 0

The environment or "Mother Nature" if you like will take care of this problem.

When any population gets too large to be supported by the environment, some calamity will be coming round to bring balance back.

Plague, war, invaders from Mars etc. etc.

The problem with the Human race is that we have so much technology and science delaying and forstalling the catastrophe.

I am not suggesting we return to the middle ages, the pandora's box has already been opened. We may be fortunate and have a discovery that can bring us back to harmony with nature.

Don't waste your time worrying about something you have almost no control over.

2007-02-02 13:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by zaphodsclone 7 · 3 0

Oh, we're making tremendous strides in solving that problem.

1) Wars
2) Genocide
3) Under-funding medical intervention for epidemic diseases in the 3rd world.
4) Polluting our environment to the extent that we are experiencing a variety of new health problems and probably warming the planet.
5) Creating all kinds of new and improved, antibiotic resistant diseases through the inappropriate and over-use of antibiotics.
6) And then there's the tremendous effort at the personal level being made in this country by everyone who chooses to eat a diet rich in trans-fats, limit their exercise and perhaps even smoke to hurry things along even more.
7) etc, etc

2007-02-02 14:25:44 · answer #5 · answered by GatorGal 4 · 0 0

The U.S. birth rate is less than the death rate; all the U.S. population growth comes from immigration.

China has a government enforced one child per couple law that is enforced in some cases by forced abortions.

Most data shows that birth rate always is lower in wealthy areas, so the best population control is making the poor countries rich.

2007-02-02 14:24:26 · answer #6 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0 0

Nothing much except hunger, diseases, wars, droughts, floods, but it doesn't seem to help much just yet. We'll have to wait some time more for mother nature to swoop things in more violent and large scale proportions.
There's nothing we can do about it to speed the process up, except for skipping all aid programs, do a better global deforestation job, burn more fossil fuels, catch more fish, make more war, make more religious indoctrinated people who prevent others from using condoms and make more religious indoctrinated people on their turn.

2007-02-02 14:23:57 · answer #7 · answered by Caveman 4 · 0 0

Not much. And the world cannot sustain current population growth for much longer before some catastrophic consequences start happening.

2007-02-02 13:48:45 · answer #8 · answered by duffman071 4 · 1 0

It is hard to do anything because of religion, and different cultural beleifs. Many people don't beleive in birth control, or things like that. And it is their right, so alot of whats being done is just informing people, and hoping they will respond.

2007-02-02 13:48:37 · answer #9 · answered by Jiko 2 · 0 0

Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 294,482,669,858 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003053894 °C by the year 2050.

Malaria cost US$ 258,008,929,817 in lost GDP and 5,300,688 lives over the same period.

http://www.junkscience.com/

There's your answer.

2007-02-02 13:47:42 · answer #10 · answered by $Sun King$ 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers