So what do you recommend, mass genocide to lower the population? Seriously, there are some retarded people on Yahoo! Answers, and you're one of them.
2007-03-16 01:44:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Huey Freeman 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Trees Vs Babies ?!
When a baby is born, its flesh,blood and has a soul. When a tree is chopped it does destroy the eco-system. But the question is, isover population really really the enviromental killer. China and India and the rest of the 3rd world countries did not START the industral age. Did they ? The are not the CONSUMERS of the world that demand to be satiated with products ? Are they ? The factory of the world, as China is at the moment thanks to who ? Thanks to the World that demand that the Factory churn out products with designs that the world is addictive too. And just becasue that the developed world do not want to populate more, can you really blame the rest of the countries that have babies ? And why?, between "marrying and divorcing", "Sex and abortion", "education and women right", the white women is being abused and has decided to stand for themselves becasue the men has screwed up, havent they ? And the women is saying "You can screw me but I am not going to be bogged down by babies, I have a career, if you men , you want babies, you change their diapers !!!!!".... AND as it is China has already a 1 child policy. What else do you want them to do. What do you want a newly wed do, be childless forever ? When their distant "cousins" on the other side of the atlantic would rather choose to kill the foetus or otherwise known as Abortion ! I think they are more humane to have the babies which has a soul dear to the heart of God that gives the spirit than their distant counterpart, more worried with Trees Killing than Killing innocent lives ?? Trees vs Babies ?? Lets get our perspective right ? And before you go off on your thesis just becasue of some professors or some views that you choose to adopt, get a life, travel the world see it through your own eyes and conscience. And for your info this world is doom either way. Thank God for a New World coming, mate.
2007-03-16 09:21:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pollution is not because of overpopulation. Human waste and human bodies are all organic, and do not pollute.
The main polluters are chemical factories, radioactive factories, vehicle makers and users etc. etc. I am not saying that the factories should be closed, but that the chemical/radioactive wastes be properly disposed, and people should use public transport and not use personal cars etc. which pollute the atmosphere with dangerous carbon mono oxide.
2007-03-16 08:47:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by wizard of the East 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
This question smacks of racism. I'd reply with a poser of my own: What gives the USA the right to set up factory after factory, and further aggravate the problem of environmental pollution?
2007-03-16 08:45:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Marcao 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
There's a few statement of facts.
The Earth is currently not underpopulated.
It's an impossibility for a human to destroy the environment without killing him/herself during the process.
2007-03-16 09:00:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by E A C 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not only is the question racist, but you don't have your facts correct.
China has a one baby policy. Does any of the Western countries have population control policies? Get your facts straight!
2007-03-17 18:37:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tristan K 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
what gives America the right to start war after war and destroy the planet using weapons
2007-03-16 20:32:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by YR1947 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is one world, one Humanity,all are guilty none are innocent.Two people wed, four babies born, it adds up.
2007-03-16 08:52:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
its not the ques of rights and wrongs, its verility. its seems white tools don't work well!
2007-03-16 08:59:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by people of world 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
An epidemic will occur and thin the population.
2007-03-16 08:46:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by kevin e 2
·
0⤊
2⤋