Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Jan 19
18:37
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Sep 04
Should countries of the world be making concerted efforts to reduce the number of people?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 31
|
By:
^ Nazi
|
|
By:
Gesundheit!
|
|
By:
danke schön
|
|
By:
Just as long as you give the religion of peace followers total exemption from this rule
 |
|
By:
Yes but by sensible and slow methods. Make having children less attractive by reducing or removing child benefit, maternity/paternity paid leave, subsidised nurseries and every other bribe to have more children. A sudden drop over a short period would cause serious problems in the future so it needs to be gradual. It is already happening in many countries.
|
|
By:
Aren't the media one minute saying we have an aging population and we need immigrants, and the next they are saying we are overpopulated?
Who is anyone to tell another they shouldn't have kids as well? Who do those people think they are? |
|
By:
Chairman Mao ?
|
|
By:
It was said, back in the 1960's, that this was a bit of the reason for the longevity of WW1
A fine line between Depopulation and Eugenics though. What tends to happen is absolute power will corrupt some people absolutely and it would all be horrible for millions... again. |
|
By:
One day the world's natural resources will all be gone, then what will we all do?
|
|
By:
When I was a kid in school, in the 70's, we were all being told that the world's oil will run out by the year 2000!
I don't have the answer to everything, but it's almost certain that the answer hasn't been invented or discovered yet. |
|
By:
What are the 'natural resources'?
Water aplenty. Fish aplenty and easily farmed. Coal/Oil/Gas aplenty but currently too expensive to mine most deposits. Iron etc aplenty. Don't think we've an issue. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
our friends in the East tried to do something about this in 1979; but earlier this year they were deemed to be now worrying about declining birth rates?
|
|
By:
aka most of the worlds largest oil fields have already reached optimum production levels, coal, gas and oil reserves wont last forever and it'll reach a point where it's uneconimical to extract further.
|
|
By:
obviously me and you will be dead by then.
|
|
By:
Global warming=lack of water or a good old fashioned pandemic
 |
|
By:
Birth control in Africa for a start as due to advances they no
longer need to have 15 kids each so that 2 or 3 survive. |
|
By:
Should countries of the world be making concerted efforts to reduce the number of people?
How do you plan to choose the ones to be killed? Get rid of the old ones? Or are you just suggesting controlling birth rates to reach a specific world population in say a 100 years? Irrespective of what you are suggesting, it is obviously impossible. Maybe one day when there is a single world govt that can enforce this, it may be possible. But I don't see anyone accepting either scenario in today's world. There are places in the world that still don't accept vaccines to get rid of diseases most of the world has already left in the past! Like polio. |
|
By:
I can also give you a list of countries that will call the depopulation plan a western conspiracy to take over the world.
|
|
By:
I think we should control our population.
As people live longer they must work longer. I only wish I could work but people won't employ me because of my age. Still I suppose it depends what job we had when working. I don't imagine any one who cleaned toilets enjoyed their job much. |
|
By:
Plenty of different rolls in that job though
|
|
By:
It's not so bad if you can move up the chain of command.
|
|
By:
You lot are flushed with jokes
|
|
By:
Logan's run, but perhaps not at 30
|
|
By:
I did suggest that on a recent thread Hank but 50 would be about right. Downhill all the way after that.
|
|
By:
nuke a few places, the big hoe might spurt oil lowering mining costs plus you will get shot of a few people.
|
|
By:
We could, if there was enough desire, will and interest among those who could make it happen, have a MUCH more comfortable world than we have. The need for loads of kids to be born, for keeping up numbers of religious followers, or for working the land/earning money - in the most impoverished places, could be drastically reduced.
Better use could be made of land, more people could do slightly less work and the whole lot could be done if there was less greed and less desire of about 100 people to have over half of everything in the world. Fewer despots and psychos to do their dirty work (in other words some fairness) would level everything out. Desalination could take care of water. Better ways of getting it could take care of oil, solar and wind power will be better utilised. Importantly, massive organisations who couldn't give feck about people should have limited business and allow true free markets to operate with many many more smaller enterprises. Other things, not yet found or thought of, can add to the general benefit of everyone and within a couple of generations, populations could stabilise themselves or even reduce. No-one need suffer. |
|
By:
Consider the lilies.
|
|
By:
splitter.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
wit-ham
02 Jan 19 22:20 Joined: 01 Aug 03 | Topic/replies: 8,621 | Blogger: wit-ham's blog Plenty of different rolls in that job though very good wit ham |