The world is becoming overpopulated. How would you fix it?

Homosexuality. That can be taken a number of ways but it boils down to being the most practical, humane form of population control. People still experience love and family, but less couples are actually mating together.

What did I admit to in my post? I was stating that some people did not agree with you on killing off people to fix what op thinks is overpopulation.(if that was your original post).
For those(Akaoni21) answering with killing off a group of people, can you really think killing off a group of people is a simple solution? Is it not a question of morals and won't there still be the problem with the depleting resources such as copper, fossil fuels, ground water, clean water, fish, and minerals.


http://economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Depletion_of_fish_stocks.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/31/six-natural-resources-population

If you nuked China then I bet Russia would nuke whatever country attacked first, then that would create a world war of nukes.
But it would help quite a bit, since after some years we would be able to plant trees and such we would also be able to look for other materials, allow animals to populate the area for more food for us and the like.
And lets be honest china is nothing but a communistic shit hole, nobody is really alive there, its just work work work for no cash and child labor.
If you nuked China then I bet Russia would nuke whatever country attacked first, then that would create a world war of nukes.
But it would help quite a bit, since after some years we would be able to plant trees and such we would also be able to look for other materials, allow animals to populate the area for more food for us and the like.
And lets be honest china is nothing but a communistic shit hole, nobody is really alive there, its just work work work for no cash and child labour.
Morals is just an excuse to make you feel better about yourself, to make you feel superior, nothing but a delusion, you must what you can to survive, and it would help in the long run.

In Bangladesh for example if you go and feed people whose problem is that their numbers are forever getting greater all you can possibly do is incubate catastrophe.

You keep enlarging the number of people that you KNOW absolutely have to perish in a very unfortunate way sometime in the future.

I think that any humanitarian would like to see the population in places where its a serious problem (Like In Africa) reduced in a humane way. Otherwise it will inevitably be reduced in an inhumane way.

There is a Ted Talk about population and Religon, it actually concludes with a very informative prediciton: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

The video sums answers a few questions: Does religion affect how many kids? What is the population rate? What is to be expected from such rates.

The video claims that what we seeing is something called "The Great Fillup" Where there is a population cap apparent. The reason for this is as education grows for nations, birth rates go down. This is seen in First world countries where children are around 1-2 per household compared to third world. However, education, standards of living is growing in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, etc. This means that overall that population rate is stabilizing, or at least predicted to stabilize.

I'll admit I regret not clarifying. I certainly believe it's getting warmer, but wouldn't that be because of natural cycle? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

But instead we're being taught that Al Gore-Propaganda in High Schools across the globe that it is humanity's fault, and presenting it as fact? I don't think it has ever been proven. So yeah, I'll keep calling the campaign a scam...

It's getting warmer, yes. But there's no proof it's man-made.

Anyways, I think we should be ashamed of ourselves that we endorse the murder of others so that the upper class could selfishly survive.

While I bashed Bill Gates in my other post, if I agree with him on anything, I'll admit I vastly support the idea of birth control. We need to prevent UNWANTED pregnancies and EDUCATE people on sanitation and medicine (Both natural and pharmaceutical.)

If places where we are educated about proper health and sanitation, we do not need larger families because we are not getting sick. Similarly, we have access to birth control, abortion, estrogen shots (abortion without the controversy), "the pill" and so on to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If we could simply educate people on these things and provide a better environment, I believe we might see a decline in population rise without needing to harm or sterilize anyone!

Although to wrap things up, I think we need to stop looking at things globally. Our business should instead be concerned with whether our country could sustain itself with its population than looking at the entire planet. We're not responsible for the millions in China, why should I care?

Just glancing at that i saw this bit



If globally it is warmer than it was during that period, that would imply its not just a natural cycle.



I agree with you here, but later on you contradict yourself a bit



What i got from this is that its ok to potentially screw over the world if it benefits America.You say we should be ashamed of ourselves for endorsing murder so the rich may survive, but here you say we shouldn't be responsible for what happens in other countries. Why are the lives of people in other countries not worth worrying about, and why is it ok to ignore possible consequences for them for America to survive?

I can sort of relate to Lishy1 on letting go of other countries. Being a humanitarian to the max is a problem, you're trying to help out everyone else while forgetting about yourself, while it is okay on a moral standpoint of people alone, it isn't the same for a country. People try to help out the third-world countries and instead the situation hardly changes or it gets worse, then people want to help out those countries so much that they are blinded by their actions and end up losing money themselves and find themselves in a far worse state. Plus if the people don't want to help out their own country, why don't they fly to the third-world and DIRECTLY help?

This whole "these poor kids and people" and bleeding-heart mentality has got to go. I recently heard that a family or an elderly couple somewhere in Europe got kicked out of their own homes for immigrants. The country is sacrificing it's own people instead and already chose their moral conflict to help out the people "in need" like the immigrants.

I am not recommending the extreme you are referring to. However,the way Lishy said "Why should we care" just irked me the wrong way. And as for the immigrant thing, i would need to know the details of it before making a judgment on it.

I wanna post something completely off topic here ...

If you see any members insulting other members here based on irrational reasons such "cussing" them for not being intelligent enough or "assuming" they are right and wrong and they should " get the fuck out " then please report immediately to Tegumi.

Insults will not be tolerated, if you wanna prove other members wrong or would like to add more proof to one's theory or facts, then post them in a responsible and intelligent matter.

If you believe I am wrong then please read the rules before making any assumptions on how things work here.

So back on topic within this spoiler.



Please refrain from being irrational or cruel, we are here to share information but also learn from information coming from other people.

I think you are on the right track with India and China. My theory for a population control measure would be to have a war sparked between China and India. They already hate each other and are the most populous countries in the world. Get them to go to war and you will have something. All in all though, China is going to go to war with somebody in the next century. Its inevitable. They are too greedy, anti-human rights, and isolationist on the international arena.



America and Europe make most of the world's food, so depending on how countries cooperate there could be localized artificial famines. Just embargo food exports to a country.

Biological engineering is a rapidly expanding field. Depending on how research goes, we could see viable biological weapons in the next few decades. I mean, we already have Ebola, which is practically a biological weapon of mass destruction. Just modify how it spreads a bit and you are good to go.



Indeed it does. Not only does it accomplish little to nothing in the long run, it also takes money away from a country. All those rich people donating to foreign support organizations do little to establish diplomatic relations, while at the same time taking money away from the money supply. Its a contributing factor to the debt of America and others. That and the rich refusing to spend their money, as well as the abuse of credit (which goes back to stupidity and the marching morons).



All my posts on every website are red. I just like the color. I could care less if you find it an eyesore. Otherwise, I found your post pretty damn entertaining.

I swear I would have read the OP but it hurts my eyes to read red letters. But ended up reading it anyway.

The problem is not the resources, the problem is us humans and our consumptions. As Anes has said, we do have enough, but consuming at this rate, will we have enough for the future? And fixing this wouldn't be easy, I gotta tell you that.

I can't come up with an answer for now, but we know for sure that this can't continue on forever.

Red certainly irritates our eyes thus not letting us properly concentrate on reading your posts, if you can please use the dark red font color.

Also to add to this topic .... to control population overflow then it is better to just inform the public useful information as to why overpopulation can be hazardous to the system we now live in, especially targeting places where baby booming happens frequently such as poor countries.

Information and rational explanation can save the trouble of producing unnecessary newborn babies that will have the risk of not having enough support from the family and often become sick and unsecured.

Sure it sounds heartless, but then again I am not God where I can instantly just snap my fingers and solve every problem out there in a split second.

I like how you contribute to the discussion, but I don't like your attitude, don't expect people to respect you if act show attitudes like that. And it's true it's a fucking eyesore using red for your block of text.

I should have said it to the last guy, but please keep posts relevant to the discussion. If you REALLY have a beef with what I'm doing, send it in a PM and we'll discuss it from there.

Just leave it alone, famine and other disasters will balence it out. Or plagues start in areas where the population is huge and sanitary conditions suck.

Didn't you see my post before this one?
I was just adding points, I don't have a beef against you, or maybe YOU have some against what I am doing? Because what I was doing was purely because of concern.

[color=#2e1a6b]Why does the world need its population reduced? I'd like this question to be answered before we talk about how.

There's plenty of land; enough for all people (7 billion) to own about 20 KM2 of land. There's plenty of food; the U.S. government even pays farmers to grow less food. There's obviously plenty of water, and there's enough oxygen for everyone.

So, before you talk about nuclear war and which country to take out, please explain why we need to in the first place.

Try reading my post perhaps. Say what also provides some good articles too.

And like with what i have come to expect from SD sub-quality, most of the posts in here are retarded. Nuking a country? Really.

@OP you can keep your shit red text, i just won't bother to read your posts nor will others.