Ways to deal with overpopulation

Recommended Videos

phatty500

New member
Mar 25, 2009
283
0
0
i personally think that before colonizing other worlds is feasible we should find a short term solution. I personally like china's approach of offering incentives to only have one child though i am aware they occasionally take these rules to disgusting extremes.
 

RanD00M

New member
Oct 26, 2008
6,946
0
0
werewolfsfury said:
RanD00M said:
Do what China does to some extent. Only two kids per parents. That way we drastically reduce the birthrates without eliminating anyone.
but... doesn't china still have tons of people?
That's because of the size. And because almost everyone has two children there, at least two children. But here in the western world people don't think as much about keeping the family alive and making long lasting workers. I'm saying cap it at two for people that want children, and then everyone else that doesn't want to have a child can just go about their daily lives.
 

onilinksword

New member
Dec 3, 2009
7
0
0
I have not read this entire thread, so I don't know everything that's been said, but I am noticing a lot of people saying things like "there's plenty of planet to go around" or "overpopulation is a myth." You guys need to get your heads out of the sand and face the facts.

Yes, over population isn't a problem in all parts of the world at the moment, but how long will that last? The thing about population growth is that it's an exponential process. Leave it unattended and any problem will literally multiply itself into something much bigger. Heck, our population was only about half a billion (short scale, or 5x10^8) 500 years ago. Now we are nearing 7 billion! Considering how our population has been around for many thousands of years, a huge jump like that in a short period of time is staggering.

What will life be like in another 500 years?

Lets do some math. The surface area of the land on our earth is about 1.4894x10^8 km^2 (or 1.4894x10^11 m^2). The earths population as of 2009 was 6.7755x10^9. Let's estimate our current population growth at about 1% (numbers can vary, but lets use the lower side of it). Now, let's set up an equation that uses these numbers in an interesting way.
(6.7755x10^9)(1.01)^Y = 1.4894x10^11 _._ Y stands for years

Solve for Y and we end up with 541.98

What this means is that, if our population growth remains the same, in roughly 540 years, every square meter of land on the earth will have exactly one person on it.

One square meter is not a lot of space for a person.

There are some flaws in this equation. I did not account for skyscrapers or any water structures, but I also didn't account for the hostile unlivable land or resource dedication. This is more of a thought experiment using real numbers about the amount of space we have. The reality is that humans have about only 100 years left until we start to face MAJOR issues with resources. We clearly need to start talking about possible solutions soon rather than ignoring the problem until it's too late.
 

SD-Fiend

Member
Legacy
Nov 24, 2009
2,075
0
1
Country
United States
RanD00M said:
werewolfsfury said:
RanD00M said:
Do what China does to some extent. Only two kids per parents. That way we drastically reduce the birthrates without eliminating anyone.
but... doesn't china still have tons of people?
That's because of the size. And because almost everyone has two children there, at least two children. But here in the western world people don't think as much about keeping the family alive and making long lasting workers. I'm saying cap it at two for people that want children, and then everyone else that doesn't want to have a child can just go about their daily lives.
that still doesn't seem like it would work at all
 

Dalek Caan

Pro-Dalek, Anti-You
Feb 12, 2011
2,871
0
0
NightmareLuna said:
First step: Birth control.
Only 1 child is allowed, and you can only have that child if you get a permit, otherwise it is illegal to have one.

Second step: Random killing.
Then we need to start killing people in largely populated areas, like for example New York City seriously, roughly 8-9 million people in one big city... That is way too much, and yes I've been and it is the most horrible, and disgusting sight I've ever seen.

Third step: Kill of developing nations
Yes, we need to start killing the developing countries since they are taking up way too much valuable time/food/space to be a good choice of living. Plus their birthrate and child death is through the roof so to say.

So... TL;DR, start killing people and birth control. That is a good solution.
This is how people will then react accordingly:

Step 1: A lot of people will be pissed. Not many will speak out though because of fear but large to small scale riots will occur world wide depending on location.

Step 2: You start killing off loved ones and what happens? Full scale revolution. Might not be organized but it will be very effective. Social and Economic collapse within days, overpopulation might collapse everything with a few hundred years but revolution would do it in days.

Step 3: Step 3 doesn't get a chance to happen because of step 2.

In short I think we should be looking to see how we can provide more food and space to people rather than killing them off.
 

Mr.Numbers

New member
Jan 15, 2011
383
0
0
Hunt obese people.

Kill two metaphorical birds with one literal stone.

What? They taste like high quality pork? Ask 1930's Germans -Invokes Godwins law accidently-
 

janos16

New member
Apr 15, 2009
40
0
0
this has an easy solution you give tax benefits to people with less than two kids and tax penalty's to people we have more than two kids problem solved this worked in japan really well btw ...
 

Ammutseba

New member
Sep 24, 2010
100
0
0
Eugenics. Sterilize (forcefully if needed) all dumb people. If the factories become a little empty we should be able to replace them with robots soon enough.
 

llew

New member
Sep 9, 2009
584
0
0
Lukeje said:
llew said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...

But anyway. There's still more than enough food and space to go around, so I don't see what the problem is.
a thousand million is a billion... and as for "plenty of food to go around" tell that to africa
One thousand million is a short-scale billion. Pay attention.

And why should I tell that to Africa?
tell that to africa to see if you have any limbs left afterwards, one of my friends has been out there and she said people were killing each other over food where she went, and i don't know anyone that says "a thousand million" instead of "a billion" short-scale or not, besides ive never heard of it being a "short-scale" (for note im british)
 

Midnight Crossroads

New member
Jul 17, 2010
1,912
0
0
The problem doesn't really stem from North America, Australia, Europe, and parts of Asia. These places have low birthrates. Dangerously so in some areas. We need to tackle and properly regulate Africa, large parts of Asia, and parts of America.

-Invest in more efficient use of fossil fuels
-Invest in alternative fuel sources, especially solar power
-Massive oasification
-Create a stable, economically independent Africa, South America, and Asia.

The first three will reduce the impact of the fourth, which is the most important part. Birth rates decline as wealth rises. Girls in parts of Africa are already highly discouraged from having children young because mothers worry it will cut into their chances of going to college. That stuff has to become normal. It would help if the Catholic Church would just bite the bullet and allow people to use contraceptives. It's not doing Africa any services, and condoms would go a long way to getting the birth rate down to around a good 2.

Even if there wasn't social or political unrest in large parts of South America and Africa, there's still the problem of a lack of good deep-water ports and current trade routes. Most trade goes through the Suez and Panama canals, which bypasses most of Africa and South America entirely. This is starting to change, Brazil and Nigeria especially, but there's a long way to go.

Unfortunately, this will probably take a chunk out of Europe and North America as competition for resources rises which we might not be too keen to take.
 

kouriichi

New member
Sep 5, 2010
2,414
0
0
Two words.....

ARENA COMBAT~!
Once a month, stick 500000 people into an arena. Last person standing gets 1 million dollars. ((Or, ive their a convict, their freedom with only 1 strike left. Any crimes committed after release is an automatic death penalty.))
Watch them duke it out. Sell tickets to anyone over 21. Use the tickets to fuel the games.

Rinse, repeat, population problem solved in a few years. People with no future could fight, and have a chance to make something if their future. People with a bad past have a chance to wipe the slate clean and start over anew.

Then use the bodies of the dead as fertilizer, and use the crops to feed the starving, homeless and poor. All additional proceeds go to fighting cancer, AIDS, and HIV.

Sure, its a bit cruel, and there are probably better alternatives, but this one would be one of the cheapest and fastest.
 

RanD00M

New member
Oct 26, 2008
6,946
0
0
werewolfsfury said:
RanD00M said:
werewolfsfury said:
RanD00M said:
Do what China does to some extent. Only two kids per parents. That way we drastically reduce the birthrates without eliminating anyone.
but... doesn't china still have tons of people?
That's because of the size. And because almost everyone has two children there, at least two children. But here in the western world people don't think as much about keeping the family alive and making long lasting workers. I'm saying cap it at two for people that want children, and then everyone else that doesn't want to have a child can just go about their daily lives.
that still doesn't seem like it would work at all
Please do elaborate as to why it would not work.
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,047
0
0
llew said:
Lukeje said:
llew said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...

But anyway. There's still more than enough food and space to go around, so I don't see what the problem is.
a thousand million is a billion... and as for "plenty of food to go around" tell that to africa
One thousand million is a short-scale billion. Pay attention.

And why should I tell that to Africa?
tell that to africa to see if you have any limbs left afterwards, one of my friends has been out there and she said people were killing each other over food where she went,
People kill each other over food in Britain too. What of it?
and i don't know anyone that says "a thousand million" instead of "a billion" short-scale or not, besides ive never heard of it being a "short-scale" (for note im british)
That's mainly because of the influence of the American markets.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
I'm not following you, a billion is a thousand millions, so those two are the same thing?

What is 7 billion to you then if not the same as seven thousand million?
7 x 10[sup]12[/sup].
Which is 7 trillion...
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,047
0
0
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
I'm not following you, a billion is a thousand millions, so those two are the same thing?

What is 7 billion to you then if not the same as seven thousand million?
7 x 10[sup]12[/sup].
Which is 7 trillion...
(short scale).
 

BlumiereBleck

New member
Dec 11, 2008
5,401
0
0
Simple, use of space travel to create space colonies on the moon or in space...seriosuly if it happened in Gundam it will happen in real life.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
I'm not following you, a billion is a thousand millions, so those two are the same thing?

What is 7 billion to you then if not the same as seven thousand million?
7 x 10[sup]12[/sup].
Which is 7 trillion...
(short scale).
You mean the only scale anyone actually uses? Why not just start posting in Hexadecimal numbers and complaining about how nobody else uses those in everyday conversation?
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,047
0
0
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
I'm not following you, a billion is a thousand millions, so those two are the same thing?

What is 7 billion to you then if not the same as seven thousand million?
7 x 10[sup]12[/sup].
Which is 7 trillion...
(short scale).
You mean the only scale anyone actually uses?
The only scale the English speaking world in general uses, yes.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
I'm not following you, a billion is a thousand millions, so those two are the same thing?

What is 7 billion to you then if not the same as seven thousand million?
7 x 10[sup]12[/sup].
Which is 7 trillion...
(short scale).
You mean the only scale anyone actually uses?
The only scale the English speaking world in general uses, yes.
Interesting, *looks around*. How about that, this forum seems to be in English.
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,047
0
0
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
Jadak said:
Lukeje said:
It's not really 7 billion. It's only about 7,000,000,000 people (i.e. seven thousand million). I still don't understand why Americans use the short scale...
I'm not following you, a billion is a thousand millions, so those two are the same thing?

What is 7 billion to you then if not the same as seven thousand million?
7 x 10[sup]12[/sup].
Which is 7 trillion...
(short scale).
You mean the only scale anyone actually uses?
The only scale the English speaking world in general uses, yes.
Interesting, *looks around*. How about that, this forum seems to be in English.
I get the impression you're not really taking me seriously...