would it be realistic to put the human population into a standstill so that it wont grow any more? i personally think that 90% of all problems comes from the fact that there are just too many humans around. because of this, humans are no longer diginified and are not respected to the level they should. personally, homeless, murderers, thives, thugs, raperers etc.. just disgust me. they are scums of humanity. i would much rather have 5 million people running UK than 65 million. i think most of the jobs that are done by humans can also be done by robots, 5 million very well educated and trained in different areas so that everything runs well and no room for scums. liveing shouldnt be free, it should be earned.
2007-07-23 02:46:39 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I would agree with you. Many of the problems we face today are related to the over population of the planet. We talk global warming, deforestation, rainforests, animal habitats disappearing, food shortages, water shortages, fuel shortages, etc. These are all related to over population.
It is amazing how we always focus on solving the issue by some other solution when the bottom line is there are too many people on the planet and its growing exponentially.
People as a whole are stupid and it requires hardship before they are willing to change. Over population should be addressed but it will be ignored until it effects us all in a bad way.
Gas prices for example have changed the way most people buy vehicles. Smaller and more fuel efficient cars are more popular that the SUVs. Only because driving an SUV hurts the pocket book too much.
I don’t understand the need for robots if you reduced the population. Your on your own with the robots. i also don't understnad the point about the criminals. That seemed kinda random.
2007-07-23 03:03:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You've got that right to a point.
The population of the planet is the single largest root of all problems. We are all in competition for the Earths limited resources and it's getting worse year after year.
Many governments have faced this problem with varying degrees of success and morality.
Genocide is a result in many cases, Hitlers Germany is the best known example but there have been dozens more.
Pol Pott (sp?) in Cambodia killed 5 million. Saddam killed at least half a million. There were the Serbs, the Croats the Sudanese, right now in Darfur there is ongoing Genocide and the UN stands by ...ever wonder why?
We really should come up wit a plan to reduce the population world wide. There was a move in the 70's in the US called "Zero population growth" it didn't work either.
I guess nothing short of WW3 will reduce our numbers, the question is can we come up with a plan before that happens?
2007-07-23 03:32:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh my... for a start don't judge people until you have been in their shoes. It is also rather snobbish to consider people scum. I wouldn't like you running the country. It would only be people with country estates and had horses would get to live. What are you going to kill the rest of us?
Yes, some jobs humans do can be done by robots. But they are not 100% reliable and you will need a 'scummy' computer engineer to fix it.
And why shouldn't living be free? We didn't ask to be born. Shouldn't we try help these people you regard as scum? How do you know what their story is? Do you think all homeless people are scum? What if they were more knowledgeable than you will ever be? Are they still regarded as scum? Sure you may not agree with peoples behaviour. But shouldn't we have ways to prevent this other than just kill off people.
In my opinion, we should stop labelling people as scum just because they don't fit our standards. Maybe you should try that?
And living is a right. We all have the right to live. And what if someone who is very knowledgable but commits murders, but has very useful knowledge?
2007-07-23 03:01:29 · answer #3 · answered by sparkle 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes but you are also taking away human right and natural instinct. It would never happen.
I dont entirely agree, high population does not create murderers,thieves, rapists ect. It would have to be within that person in the first place.
2007-07-23 02:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
In the US, reproductive freedom is a fundamental right.
That means the govt cannot prohibit conception, and cannot mandate abortion. Just like they cannot force conception, and cannot prohibit abortion. As long as reproductive choice is a fundamental right, the govt cannot make the decisions either way.
If we eliminate that choice as a fundamental right, then the govt can do as you suggest and prevent people from having children without govt permission.
2007-07-23 06:36:35 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
so if you have got so much time on your hands to ask such stupid questions then you must not have a job or if you have its a bum job so lets start with getting rid of you
2007-07-23 02:51:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I guess you will be one of the first volunteers then.
For euthanasia.
2007-07-23 02:50:36 · answer #7 · answered by oldhombre 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
don't breed then. more room for the rest of us.
2007-07-23 02:51:28 · answer #8 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋