|
|
#21 |
|
Forum User
|
Its all China's fault. Them and there 1 billion citizens. We should kill china. Living in the sea would be cool. I could be one with the coral again.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Too bad that doesn't help much. They already have 1.2 billion people, the fact is they're still going to produce faster than they're wiped out at such a massive population. However, once they finally emerge as a first world country, their population will level off. But you have to remember immigrants populating the rest of the world. China alone could be looking at as much growth as 7-9 million people a year in the near future.
But atleast they're doing something. Africa and a lot of the other countries in southern asia are causing the big problems right now. India poses a big problem. You could be looking at nearly 60-70 years before they are finally able to stabalize their population, and by then they could increase it more than 700 million. As for rednecks, XD. North america would be looking at a maximum of 1-2 million people a year. And that's mostly the immigrants. Population control doesn't stop overpopulation, it only slows it slightly. How well developed a nation is determines how fast the population grows. Limiting to one child in a country that is mostly undeveloped doesn't do much good; they're still going to have that child.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Away from Computer
|
ok, here's the plan
first we figure out where the hell we're going to get energy since we're running out of resources if we have too many people, we'll just nuke some country and have them nuke someone else and start WW3. Everyone will die and the world population will be controlled. Or we could spread the plague 3rd millenia edition
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
War is useless and a waste of life. A population is always going to rebound unless we're pushed to the point of extinction. If you want to stop overpopulation, asia and africa have to develop. But yes, resources are a problem, which is why space is looking like a very good future for us.
The bird flu might lay a smack down on africa and southern asia if it hits human to human >.> Almost all of the deaths will be centered there. But this only hinders their development, they will rebound, so it's not like it's helping any.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Away from Computer
|
Lets dump an enormous solar panel in front of our entire planet
Or lets hook up a giant metal ring around our planet thats bolted to the ground somewhere then rope up the metal ring to the moon, and stick a nuclear power plant there I have crazy ideas, then the moon could have all our power and still somehow be connected If we developed a teleport type of device, (sending people through wires n stuff) then we could easil.... ok I'm going to cut the star trek OCEAN TREK Omega, start the new sci fi show OCEAN, THE FINAL FRONTIER BEFORE SPACE
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
__________________
Come Play The Werewolf Game! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
FFR Player
|
I would have to assume your mom's private parts are not a frontier to be traveled on yes?
Apparantly, there was this study that said soy sauce reduces sperm counts. Who would like to call BS first? |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
|
massacre is the only solution to overpopulating
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
is against custom titles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 269
|
Sorry, I felt like I had to say something: first of all, lemmings do not jump off of cliffs in order to reduce their population - read [[Lemmings]]. Second, it seems to me that the desire to expand constantly is a societal and cultural disease. Has it not occurred to anyone that unmitigated growth is going to destroy us? Also, the solution is pretty simple.
A pretty basic rule of ecology is: as a population's food supply increases, the population grows in numbers. Conversely, if a population's numbers grow, then its food supply must have increased. The only solution to overpopulation is to stop producing so much food. Our agricultural industries are taxed to the limit, and we're always trying to find more and more ways to suck nourishment out of the earth - and this only increases our numbers! Some people say that we're human, we can restrain ourselves from reproducing - unfortunately the mob psychology does not make choices as clear as that of the individual, and our societal behaviours as a whole can usually be modeled pretty accurately by those of animal populations. The argument that as more and more countries join the ranks of the first world, their population expansion will decrease, is rather baseless since the reason that they are first world countries in the first place is their dependence on the economies of the rest of the world. There's no way that prices in the US could be so low, for example, were not a large portion of our products being imported from places where labor and materials are cheap - i.e. third world countries. Therefore the whole world is not going to just convert into one big first-world-country paradise - in fact, the gap between the rich and the poor is always growing o_O I think it's time we thought about decreasing our population instead of finding new places to expand to. -fs |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Senior Member
|
Is there enough land already here to make that many man-made islands?
EDIT: I don't have any clue how accurate this is, but I have heard from various professors that America alone could feed the whole world on it's produce alone. I want to call bull**** on that, but I'm not sure.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 269
|
America can feed the world with a small percentage of its military budget, a statistic which is often quoted but which I don't know from where originates. However, people don't eat money - in any case America is already sort of feeding the world, since it is the top dog in the economic ladder, and almost everything is under the employ, directly or indirectly, of first-world countries. It is certainly true that America consumes a vastly disproportionate quantity of materials compared to other countries.
-fs |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
"The argument that as more and more countries join the ranks of the first world, their population expansion will decrease, is rather baseless"
Not really, statistics will show you outside of immigration the states population isn't growing much at all. Now then, as for what else you said, this is true. However, you are forgetting something. Indeed, as the gap grows between rich and poor, they eventually develop regardless. Sure, they are not as developed, but this has nothing to do with population growth. Population grows rapidly during critical development stages! We've been developing for thousands of years. Guess when all the major growth happened? Take a stab at it. This happens (generally) because technology is exceeding the needs and cultural lifestyle of the people...aka, birth rate greatly exceeds death rate. But yes, regardless population will continue to grow even in a perfectly developed world. But not nearly as fast as it is, which is my point entirely, since China (quickly developing!), India (quickly developing!), and some african countries I can't name off the top of my head right now account for most of the worlds overpopulation o_O Projections show in as little as fifty years indias population could nearly double. But around that time is when they will finish development, and their population will plateau.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 03-20-2006 at 07:46 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,521
|
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
FFR Player
|
if we nuked each other 2 death then the water would be poisonious and if we ate the fish we would all figgin die
ps.. we couldent live on giant boats becouse if we used up all the resources we would have no gas or electricity duh |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
FFR Player
|
and we couldent live on man made islands because if we nuked everybody or we used up all the resources then there would be eather a cloud of death gas (from the nukes) and acid like rain that would kill us all and if we used up all the resources then we would have no food
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
FFR Player
|
and regarding the poor and rich thing
like with animals if it came down to surviving the weaker people would get weeded out i have gone ahead and comprised a list of who will die first 1 lighter skinned people like jews and whites and russians r next 2 then indians 3 then usually the blacks would go 4 and finnaly there would be no more life on earth except for a few hundred people that have survived buy reproducing into a super gene that would be able 2 suvive everything its called natural selection |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
FFR Player
|
Actually, those with less melanin would survive better in conditions where there isn't much sunlight, like the Arctic.
. . . Wait, why am I responding to this dumbass?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
FFR Player
|
no ur wrong the nuclear fallout will depleat the ozone and we would be burned
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|