<p>So I want input on how you think we should deal with overpopulation. It's probably one of the biggest reasons why we have so many problems. Everything from high oil prices, global warming, and several military conflicts can all be linked to overpopulation.</p>
<p>Not another thread on "overpopulation", LOL</p>
<p>Space colonization, anyone? It would actually take far fewer resources than most would imagine, since, once we get settled somewhere, it would cost NO terrestrial resources to sustain. </p>
<p>Some estimate the cost at around $100 million to get a base set up. They call it a waste. What do you think? It's going to be what needs to be done in the end regardless.</p>
<p>^That's a good idea for the future. I think the main problem would be finding a place to colonize and getting there, though. Mars would be nice, but as that one famous astronomer pointed out, it's kind of like Antarctica.</p>
<p>Well, humans will reach their carrying capacity eventually. Before that happens, instead of treating the root problem, we should treat the symptoms (which is counterintuitive, but it makes sense in this case, since we can't go killing people). I suppose we could promote homosexuality, but I'm not sure how that would work, since one can't exactly choose to be gay.</p>
<p>Make it more acceptable with catch phrases such as "take one in the fanny, save money on a nanny."</p>
<p>Anyway, I think we've already discussed to death about the gay issue. Let's find other solutions. If you're going to have kids, join the military.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that would be a popular idea. How about just consuming less so that overpopulation isn't an issue anymore in the short term? Then we can leave the problem to future generations. They might have the technology to do what Kaznack says.</p>
<p>And I think abstinence would probably be more effective that trying to get people to "become" gay. I guess that since homosexuality is really a continuum, though, some people wouldn't mind as much.</p>
<p>thank you thomas malthus. The way that overpopulation always solves itself is by lots of people dying. Every great massacre from the French Revolution to Rawanda and Darfur have their roots in a lack of resources (bread, water, food). I dont think overpopulation will be the problem, what we do with all the dead bodies will be though. </p>
<p>Also, with dec 21 2012 and the return of quetzoquatl approaching, Im not sure if we really need to worry about over population.</p>
<p>Look at the statistics. We're outbreeding dead people by at least 3 to 1.</p>
<p>Yes, and there will be a lot of wars that kill all of those babies. Pretty much all of those extra kids being borne are being born in developing countries and will soon die due to AIDS/Diseases/warfare over resources/famine/drought/natural disasters/sex trade/drug addiction/eaten by tigers. Overpopulation is not a new thing, the French were overpopulated at the time of the FR. At the same time, there was a 6 year famine that killed the wheat crop and the french refused to eat potatoes so lost of them died. They were angery, and they had a revolution and killed everyone then. Its more complicated than that, but the root cause was a lack of resources. At the end of the day, it is alot easier to kill everyone that is different than you than it is to plan some 50 year conservation project, or ship people to the moon. </p>
<p>Finally, global fertiilty rates are actually declining as the world is becoming more industrialized, I suggest you to go this website</p>
<p>Gapminder</a> - Home </p>
<p>and check out some of the gapcasts about this kind of stuff. You would really dig it, its all intl public health and demographics.</p>
<p>Not every war was about resources. Some were about egos, such as the wars for Spanish and Austrian succession.</p>
<p>I agree with that, but that was a different time too. After the people got control of their govts, its been very difficult to start a war without some kind of infringement/removal of resources.</p>
<p>But that war was also a war for the control of power/influence which is a resource/way to gain resources.</p>
<p>^^ also, that was a different time, after people got control of their govts, it became very difficult for people to just start wars without in infringement on resources.</p>
<p>Genocide is the answer, we can remove all the breeders, along with them idiotic Americans and those who don't work in Hollywood.This is for ^.</p>
<p>I don't think we should get rid of breeders. If you're gonna have babies, make sure you're smart and strong. Then kill three undesirable people to be part of the solution.</p>
<p>^ Lol, but I was not serious. But look at his post on the thread "Gay People," and you will understand.</p>
<p>But if I have to, I will hire a hit on a couple of hobos.</p>
<p>A step in the right direction would be reducing poverty. When poor people have given up hope and can't work or find a job, what do they do? Have sex. When people have jobs and other obligations, there's less time for sex.</p>
<p>"A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift is a great place to start.</p>
<p>It would get rid of the abortion problem, control overpopulation, and feed us for a very long time.</p>
<p>2 relatively easy solutions are available to us, one of them cheap and the other (actually) lucrative. We could:</p>
<p>Distribute contraceptives in 3rd world countries (Africa, India, etc.), areas where the breeding rates are highest and protection the lowest. Condoms would be the easiest bet. This also wouldn't impinge on anyone's self-inflated "rights" as they would be wholly voluntarily. Re-education in those areas would also be needed (no, condoms don't better allow for the transfer of STD's, silly Mr. Pope).</p>
<p>Eliminate welfare past the 1st child or maybe even altogether. Why is the government paying for people to breed? Get the word out that all children born past, say, 2010 will not receive welfare benefits, and then the poor, those most likely to have large families, will probably stop (children no longer a money maker but instead regress into their more traditional role of "liability")</p>
<p>Other options include:</p>
<p>Increase sexual education of HSers and stupid adults; we here probably know enough of reproduction to fill tomes, but most people fall short. Emphasize plausible methods of averting pregnancy: abstinence only is both impractical and unhealthy.</p>
<p>Give subsidies to those willing to sterilize themselves?</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Give subsidies to those willing to sterilize themselves?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Most people WILL regret such a decision, similarly to how many people regret abortions.</p>