like more food and resources, or even higher wages?
2007-12-15 20:41:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
quote catherine:but don't start going round killing people! LOL
and
free to be me:You sure are consistent! :))))))) too funny..although lately you kinda ran out of Q :-?
oh yes the question..;))
well..you cannot depopulate...you can just stop "producing"..:))
like china is doing...and they only try to give birth to males also.so i've heard,them being a very populated country.
on the other hand,if we were to cut back at let's say 3 bilions...everything around us has to be worked on...the electricity,the food,the water...everything is controld by people.they have developed everything that much so they need a lot of people to work on it.if the people are gone who will work? everything is designed in a way and everyone has his own purpose.
ok i'm starting to get a bit off track.:)).won't erase though..hope it helps and that it wasn't to much to read.:*
2007-12-16 07:09:53 · answer #1 · answered by aly_alex 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it does have advantages.
Less people = less food that would have to be produced
Less people = less demand for resources. Keep in mind that even if the world could reach zero population growth, the demand for resources will continue to grow as the average person in the world is becoming richer and able to afford things the require some sort of power to make and to run.
Less people may not mean higher wages. True the supply for what a person can provide would go down, thus having a positive effect on the wage. But as there are less people, the overall demand for services would most likely be reduced, thus having a negative effect on wages.
2007-12-16 05:14:29 · answer #2 · answered by Dozer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
More food
more resources
cheaper cost of living
higher wages
more water
less pollution
less War
easier and safer travel
but we have to depopulate by a few billion to make it work.
2007-12-16 04:45:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It means a lower burden on earth's resources. That can't be a bad thing.
We are "the tragedy of the commons" ~ see Garrett Hardin (1968).
2007-12-16 19:21:33 · answer #4 · answered by Icy Gazpacho 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You sure are consistent! lol Another question I am not sure what to say.
I suppose less people would make things different, but I am sure I wouldn't want to prove that theory.
I am going to get some facts together and send them to you. You may just have a whole new set of questions to ask. : )
2007-12-16 07:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Alright 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
absolutely! you know, maybe we *should* be like china. i've always been against people who can't afford to have children actually having them. since so many people are on the 'green' bandwagon, maybe we can finally get somewhere.
2007-12-16 04:48:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If 6,602,224,175.is not too many then I don't know what is. Even if you half this then its still to many.
2007-12-16 11:19:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It definitely would, if that happens buy stock in Trojans!!!!
2007-12-17 08:16:57 · answer #8 · answered by King of Biscuits 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, less competitions
2007-12-16 04:47:21 · answer #9 · answered by kxkx 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there is a bright side to everything.
2007-12-16 16:06:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋