Yeah, it is the underlying problem with most of the world's ills. Pollution in our oceans and atmosphere, removal of rain forests and all the social ills are effects of a too large population..
2007-10-29 04:44:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you are totally right, this world over populated. Resources are less and less every year. Look at gas prices... look at pollution... look at world hunger... look at diseases... Many problems we have today as a world is due to over population. I think what we need as a world united is to educate people and make people conscious of whats going on. Plus it would be great that couples could only have two kids and no more. This would truly lessen the population.
2007-10-29 03:31:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by 2legit2quit 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
right now, it's actually just poor distribution of resources; you could put everyone in the world in an area about the size of France in modest but comfortable houses with small yards. That leaves no room for infrastructure, agriculture or socio-economic institutions, but it could be done.
right now, we have a spread-out population with pollutant-reliant transportation/energy systems, and an political/economic system that concentrates power in the hands of a very few.
given our system, the human footprint (of impacts) is creating the effects of overpopulation (most of us consume, deliberately or not, far more than we need to, and our basic supply systems encourage and rely on this) as if our numbers were many times current population; this will worsen as (1) actual population continues to rise and (2) the rest of the world continues to adapt western-style practices.
The problems are (1) it would take a strng central authority to truly curb the problem; but such an authority wolud likely corrupt quickly and be diverted from its mission; (2) ideally, individuals could collectively solve the problem by living in denser areas, foregoing pollutant-prone production, relying on local resources and practicing sustaiable lifestules and birth control... but cultutally and temperamentally, it ain't gonna happen; or (3) we wait for some disease/disaster/condition that trims the human herd for us. I myself am hoping for a fairly harmless infertility plague, that reduces human ability to reproduce by about 75 percent during the coming century, and levelling off once humanity gets a handle on its collective behavior.
2007-10-29 03:32:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by kent_shakespear 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
With less people this would be a better place to live.
My hope is that we as a race find our way to the stars where we can find a new frontier and insure the survival of mankind.
I would be on the first ship just like the pilgrims were.
2007-10-29 03:45:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by needliberty 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
God is so tremendous that He has planned each and every thing so nicely and created human beings to stay style existence. He does no longer hardship even if you're taking excitement in sex or no longer. sex is extremely a lot in his thoughts in the different case He wouldn't have made 2, guy and woman. each and every of the topics contained in the international is through woman or guy. If in easy words one changed into there the international wouldn't have more advantageous human beings, money ,little ones, sex, saving (for self,spouse and relations), hoarding of money and capacity etc . If in easy words one sex (guy or woman) changed into there the only sex fellows would have bored to lack of life. existence would were very boring. So arising the female / guy changed into for the excitement and therefore the destruction of the international.
2016-10-23 03:27:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋