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

11 answers

do be over smart. NAture take care of all those things.

are we the polcy makers of nature

we dont obey the rules we keep for our safety are we going to bind to the policy that we are going to make. its just time waste.

you got a great thought but none will be binding to it

2007-02-22 13:05:05 · answer #1 · answered by The Prince of Egypt 5 · 0 0

There has always been a policy for limiting world population it's called war, and disease, the world has reached it's inability to maintain the population it has now, so it wont be to much longer that world war will start, and we will loose four or five hundred million people or more, then we will be able to start over again, so it comes down to if war don't get you disease will.

2007-02-22 05:57:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yes, a policy to control the population of poor.

2007-02-22 15:55:35 · answer #3 · answered by vishw_paramaatmaa_parivaar 3 · 0 0

I think it's a very important thing to do, not just to the population of human being but also with the population of the animals which has a lack of control and an overstated growth.

2007-02-22 08:03:11 · answer #4 · answered by mary2 2 · 0 0

For the World population no but for Indian yes.

2007-02-22 12:19:02 · answer #5 · answered by Ashwin M 3 · 0 1

Like in examination there are few compulsory questions in the same manner in every family there should be a limit otherwise there should be a punishment for having more than two children.

2007-02-22 18:03:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i think of you need to substitute your considerable, Frank, till you're being intentionally provocative to get many responses. think of approximately it: If each guy or woman have been limited to one newborn, the species might flow extinct (till of direction, you recommend that the strictures ought to proceed till a extra politically maximum suitable discern is attained). in spite of if each guy or woman have been limited to 2 toddlers, the species might nevertheless flow extinct (despite the fact that it might take a a lot longer time). If it weren't for human greed and delight, there could be a lot for absolutely everyone immediately, so I fail to work out how evil human beings could be any extra effectual at feeding one yet another if their numbers have been particularly decreased. the entire premise is with out commencing place.

2016-10-16 06:21:04 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I don't think people will abide by it. But couples now are choosing to have smaller families and even worse are killing off their unborn daughters in favour of sons. As a woman and an Non Resident Indian I'm against the killing of female babies.

2007-02-22 10:37:48 · answer #8 · answered by Trapped in a Box 6 · 0 0

Yes, there should be.
2 kids per each family should be mandatory.
Unfortunately it cannot be implemented by all governments of the world.
That is why it is seen that in genral those who have fewer kids
have a stronger financial position.
In the end we can see in he near future that the poor will be confined in their poverty whearas the Rich in their private island havens or Enclaves.

2007-02-22 17:15:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

And who would you entrust with making and enforcing this policy? Actually there already is one. YAHOSHUA is coming soon, and after 1000 years to review the books, we are coming back to earth, and there will be no more marriage and children.

2007-02-22 05:45:17 · answer #10 · answered by hasse_john 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers