Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

The place to go for debate on politics, religion, sex, and other tasty topics!
Post Reply
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Bamfette »

At least, that's what some would like you to believe. Specifically Forrest Mims, a fellow of the Discovery Institute who wrote the following:

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

since then, Dr. Pianka has been recieving death threats and has scrambling to clear his name.

However, I have an account from someone who was there. I know a LiveJournal entry may not be terribly authorative, but I know this guy, and he can be trusted.
http://puf-almighty.livejournal.com/95375.html

So, this is in part PSA to help clear Dr. Eric Pianka's name, as it has been horribly slandered. And the villifying of scientists in general (him reporting a standing ovation to the proposal of genocide via Ebola) is disturbing to me. Science is not out to get you. It's not out to get anyone. Yet that's an image I have seen tossed about recently, this merely being the most extreme example. It seems people are... what, afraid of change? Don't want to hear that what they're doing is harmful? I don't know.

But also.... Well, do you think we are over populating the earth? if so, what steps should be taken?

Obviously, genocide of most of the world's population is exessive. but should we maybe be trying to enforce something like in China's one child policy? though that has it's own drawbacks, particularly in a male-centric society with aborting female fetuses, and just plain enforcing it would be a bear, and stepping on freedoms is something you never want to do unless there is absolutely no other option....

Personally, I think the best option for right now is just stepping up public awareness. Get the message out that it's good for everyone to not have more children than it takes to replace yourself (so, two) when you have children (unless you have octoplets or something, obvioulsy :P) try for less than that, if you can, less peole would actually be pretty good, and we're living longer so even just restricting yourself to two does increase the population. we don't NEED any more people, we have more than is good for us as it is....

unfortunatley this smear campaign probably hampered such efforts for the near future.
Saint Kurt
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:43 am
Title: Derelict Landlord
Location: Watch out for that cow pie!

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Saint Kurt »

This may sound slightly off topic, but it's not really...

Last semester I was getting ready to leave lecture for lunch (The vet school only has two lecture halls, you're either in one or the other) when the student public health group came in and started setting up for a lunch time talk. I always like their talks so I grabbed my lunch and stayed.

The talk was by faculty from the University Agriculture department and it was about food. In particular it was about the very real fact that we were not going to have enough food to feed everybody in a very short amount of time based on current population growth statistics.

They talked about arable land (land where crops will grow) and showed maps of global arable land vs. land that wouldn't grow anything. About 90% of the planet won't grow anything.

After scaring us with that for a few minutes they began talking about the crop sciences research going on to create more arable land by creating crops that grow in non-ideal conditions along with various water conservation techniques. One of the other things they stressed was a reduction of our reliance on animal products for food.

The math is pretty obvious - the space it takes to graze one steer that can feed say 2 people for a week (I'm making these numbers up, but the ratios are about right) can grown enough grain to feed 12 people for that same week. So besides looking for ways to grow more food, they were looking for ways to recover more land to grow it on.

I think the same message is coming from a lot of different places: This planet is of finite size with finite resources. If our population continues to grow infinitely as it is, we are going to find ourselves in very serious trouble.

-e
Image
chicory
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:50 pm

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by chicory »

They've been saying that for a long time... But, converting people from cows to say soybeans is going to be as hard as weaning them off gas and oil.

Not everyone cares a whole lot about biodiversity, but I think there's a lot of truth in the idea that there's only so much life this one planet can support. If you take all of the resources and convert them into making more people, than for every person you make you lose an equal weight of butterflies or codfish or cougars or redwoods.

It's shocking to think how many fewer people there were on earth only 200 years ago. No one's going to advocate for genocide :shakeno, but with how crazy people get about the idea of the birthrate even leveling off (oh no, the human race is going to die out!) it seems too difficult to convince anyone that the human race's numbers are swollen beyond capacity (more akin to insects or bacteria than a mammal species).

So, unless there's a nuclear war or a comet strikes the earth, who knows what the future will bring.
For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. ~Gino Dalpiaz
steyn
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:16 pm
Title: The furry one.
Nightscrawlearth Character: :bunny
Location: Space.

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by steyn »

I probably sound like a an idiot for saying this, but humans adapt.
The way I see it is that humans will only adapt at the last minute, we are a very stubborn species. They moment when shops say "Sorry, there's no more meat left" or "I can't sell you food when we don't have in stock", that is when people will start to think of ways of conservation.
If you're hungry, you'll eat anything, even if it's made out of Soy.


[Edited on 8/4/06 by steynedvelvet]
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

I was under the impression that this is one of those problems that sort of takes care of itself. Canada's population growth would actually be a negative number if it weren't for all our immigrants, thanks to public awareness of the fact that lots of people, given a choice, just do not want that many children. Most people, or enough anyway, are stopping at one or two.

The only growth that is still happening is in countries like Africa where no one knows what a condom is and if they do they refuse to use them, but I don't know how their birth rate compares to their death rate. Must be getting pretty close by now with all the starvation and AIDS and whatnot.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Angelique
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:27 am
Location: sailing under the Jolly Wagner

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Angelique »

Steyned, I agree. And I do think changes in lifestyle will be better in the long run than letting rampant consumerism prevail while telling people how many kids they can or cannot have.
Meddle not with the heartstrings of fans, for we are powerful and hold your pursestrings.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6 ... &ref=share

www.heroesfallenstudiosinc.webs.com

http://hubpages.com/hub/characterdriven
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Bamfette »

I probably sound like a an idiot for saying this, but humans adapt.
The way I see it is that humans will only adapt at the last minute, we are a very stubborn species. They moment when shops say "Sorry, there's no more meat left" or "I can't sell you food when we don't have in stock", that is when people will start to think of ways of conservation.
If you're hungry, you'll eat anything, even if it's made out of Soy.
But what he was REALLY saying was that it would take care of itself, but are we prepared to face that? becuase the way the world could 'take care of the problem itself' could be absolutely brutal and horrible, not a future you would want to live through. Humans may have a history of being stubborn, but it doesn't mean you don't try. That was the point he was making. If we don't stop, the planet WILL stop us soner or later, but it will be through wide spread disease, starvation, or whatever, and do you want yourself or your descendants to live through that?

Also, personally, no matter how much land we technically CAN use, we are not the only creatures on the planet, and taking over their spaces is not fair. competition is a part of nature, yeah, but what we are doing goes far beyond anything that's happened on the planet before in terms of species competition. some animals will (and have) adapt. like squirrels, some birds like pigeons that will learn to live in our environment, but we can't expect the same of a tiger or a bear.
Executive Administrator
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:47 am
Title: Deus ex machina
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Executive Administrator »

Originally posted by Bamfette

Also, personally, no matter how much land we technically CAN use, we are not the only creatures on the planet, and taking over their spaces is not fair.
Actually, the crop sciences guys from the university were advocating using uninhabitatable desert land, abandonded land currently covered by cement or otherwise damaged so that it doesn't support life, or overtaking good arable land currently used for grazing by food industry animals. So they weren't talking about knocking down old growth forests so we can grow some more wheat. They were talking about making crops more efficient so they grow better on current farm land and/or grow on land where nothing grows or lives.

Could you imagine? In a vet school? During lunch? They would have been pelted with tofu, bean sprouts, and veggie chips*...

-e

*Obviously this is a joke. Veterinary students aren't all vegetarians, but they do all advocate smart use of animal and land resources since that's going to be their livelihood in a few years.
Crocodile Hunter
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:39 pm
Title: is not a moderator.
Location: (F)Winland

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Crocodile Hunter »

[quote]Alkuperäinen postittaja Executive Administrator
[quote]Originally posted by Bamfette

Also, personally, no matter how much land we technically CAN use, we are not the only creatures on the planet, and taking over their spaces is not fair. [/quote]

A crops more efficient so they grow better on current farm land and/or grow on land where nothing grows or lives.

[/quote]

Like sahara? :P
steyn
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:16 pm
Title: The furry one.
Nightscrawlearth Character: :bunny
Location: Space.

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by steyn »

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic

The only growth that is still happening is in countries like Africa where no one knows what a condom is and if they do they refuse to use them, but I don't know how their birth rate compares to their death rate. Must be getting pretty close by now with all the starvation and AIDS and whatnot.
Drastic, it's almost exactly how you describe it. Even our Deputy President Jacob Zuma who is on trial for rape and fraud (two different cases) stated that after the intercourse he took a shower to lessen the chances of contracting AIDS. Strange enough this does not surprise us South Africans, seeing our leader President Thabo Mbeki still does not accept that there may be a small chance of a connection between HIV and AIDS.
See, it's not just Bush that can be funny from time to time.
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Bamfette »

Originally posted by Executive Administrator


Actually, the crop sciences guys from the university were advocating using uninhabitatable desert land, abandonded land currently covered by cement or otherwise damaged so that it doesn't support life, or overtaking good arable land currently used for grazing by food industry animals. So they weren't talking about knocking down old growth forests so we can grow some more wheat. They were talking about making crops more efficient so they grow better on current farm land and/or grow on land where nothing grows or lives.
you used your wrong account ;)

But okay. THAT I can get behind. I misunderstood before. This is one preason I have no problem eating meat, personally. (though I actually LIKE vegetables.... yeah I'm a freak.) the damage is done, we're using the land, and if the population remains stable, we can maintain what we've got now with existing land.

... fur is another matter, due to a video i once saw of how the fur industry in China (where most of the commercially available fur comes from) which was nothig short of horrific. not that i have anything agaisnt fur in theory, but if you're going to do it, atleast kill the animals swiftly, don't rip their skins off while they are still alive and kicking....

[Edited on 10/4/06 by Bamfette]
HoodedMan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:39 pm
Title: Lord Sarcasmo von Snarkypants

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by HoodedMan »

OK, so I'm an idealist and a science fiction geek, but I believe that the Earth's current over-population is something that can't be stopped; how do you stop people from reproducing? Only by force, which would create a massive backlash.

I argue for space colonization. Not very realistic at the moment, but I can dream. :P
ACHTUNG! Alles touristen und non-technischen looken peepers! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Bamfette »

hey, I'd be all for being one of the first colonists on Mars or some place :)

but yeah. the space station is a start, but no matter what Dubya says about a moon base, a sizeable colony off planet is probably at least a hundred years off, unfortunately...

[Edited on 10/4/06 by Bamfette]
chicory
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:50 pm

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by chicory »

^ I've never gotten that. The whole idea that the earth is going to be all used up before we know it and instead of doing something about it while there is still time, we should be looking for a new earth to colonize.

People don't really believe that's ever going to happen do they? I always thought it was some kind of joke or sci-fi fantasy. Terraforming and light-speed travel are science fiction - colonizing Mars would require some sort of umbilical cord to Earth and if anything went wrong no one would be able to help them. If they did manage to survive they'd be dependent on resources to earth - and it doesn't seem like life would be very comfortable - I'd think you'd have a high rate of insanity. Even researching the idea is a waste of resources and funding that can be better used elsewhere. :shakeno
For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. ~Gino Dalpiaz
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Bamfette »

I think it will happen... maybe not for he sole reason that we are overpopulating the planet, though. There is a degree of adventure there. Not everything has to be entirely practical. What purpose did the moon landings, have, really? And while there are more worthwhile things to be funding here on Earth, it's true, that may not always be the case, so why give up on a dream? If we never strove for something bigger than what we have right now, well, that's pretty boring. I certainly don't want to ever think Earth is the only place we will ever visit, especially since we DO have the ability to do this. Even scratching the idea of terraforming (which is hundreds of years away) a Mars colony could be entirely self sufficient with technology available RIGHT NOW. It's not science fiction, all that's stopping us is a reason and funding. The technology to do it does exist.

I mentioned Mars because it's the most habitable planet besides our own. The Mars rovers ahve even proven that it at one time had liquid water on the surface. it was like Earth at one time. and you don't need light speed travel to get there. The trip is long, but astronauts have stayed in space much longer in one go on the Space Station than even two back to back tips to Mars would take. Russian cosmonauts have focused to a large part on space endurance because a manned Mars landing was a very real possibility to them for a long time. They ran into hurdles (loss of muscle mass, etc.) but they have since overcome it. but now the space race is over, and there is no competition to get to the next goal marker in space anymore.

Anyway. With the resources available on the planet itself, you can live there with no umbilical cord to Earth whatsoever once you get it going. I'm sure if there WAS a colony they would get shipments of goods periodically, but they wouldn't be doomed without them by any stretch. You would have to shield yourself from the atmosphere, obviously, which is entirely doable. look at the Space Station. it's shielded astronauts from raw, cold space, which is much harsher than Mars. But it has water in ice form, all you have to do is mine it and melt it. By all accounts from the Mars rovers, the soil is suitable for growing plants, so you can grow your own food if you send materials for a greenhouse before hand. This would also help with oxygen. it could even help with power! they are building a massive greenhouse in the middle of a desert in Australia that will use the heat generated by the greenhouse to turn turbines in a tower which will generate power. would work for Mars as well. and there are plenty of resources that can be mined from the planet, either the rocks or the atmosphere, from metals (iron in particular. that's why Mars is red. it's rust.) to hydrogen. Most scientists actually advocate that if going to Mars, even if only on a relatively short exploration trip, to only take enough fuel for the trip THERE to cut down weight (weight = money), then set up a mining station to get the fuel for the trip back as they are exploring. Power can be gotten through solar energy, wind, maybe nuclear power, or as mentioned, greenhouse, some cities get power from the city garbage dump, using methane created by decying waste to power turbines. that would work, too. (the greenhouse tower and garbage dump would be more long term ideas, though) or a combination. It's quite doable, though expensive and would take a long time to set it up. The biggest hurdle is getting enough resources to the surface of the planet, really. a few launches would have to be made prior to humans arrival just dumping materials, most likely. But again, once we have a rudimentary colony, they can mine the planet itself for more building materials to expand. perhaps even build part of the colony into caves. send or build a tunneling machine, get mining and habitation in one go. possibilities are endless.

I'm just saying, it may not be in our immediate future due to cost, but it's not sci-fi. If astronauts can go up into space for more than a year at a time into the cold of space with no gravity or ANYTHING in the International Space Station right now, we can make a habitable colony on Mars. Though i do agree that acually doing it would cost more than we can afford right now. but I certainly think it is worth researching.


* edit now that i look into it, terraforming isn't actually as hard as i had thought it might be... http://www.redcolony.com/art.php?id=0102220




[Edited on 10/4/06 by Bamfette]
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

Originally posted by HoodedMan
OK, so I'm an idealist and a science fiction geek, but I believe that the Earth's current over-population is something that can't be stopped; how do you stop people from reproducing? Only by force, which would create a massive backlash.
Argh! People already stopped reproducing all on their own. At least in Canada.

Birth rate peaked in the 1940s and has been gradually declining: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo03.htm

Now that people (women) aren't expected to start cranking out the kids as soon as they hit puberty, the population growth has dropped substantially. They get jobs, and by the time they realize that they want some kids they don't have time for more than one or two. Perfect solution.

The death rate is also going up. Right now there's the big thing with "aging boomers" and the strain on the health system. I predict the next big thing will be a huge death rate spike.

So we don't have to go live on Mars. (Thank GOD!)

And as for other countries... whatever. China is taking care of its population through limiting reproduction. AIDS and not enough food to feed ten kids per person is taking care of Africa's population. Other developed democracies are presumably moving along the same lines as Canada.

The world is saved. And yeah, maybe it is horrible and brutal with the baby-killing and the starvation and the disease but, um, better ideas? And what, Mars? We could, possibly, have a SMALL self-sustaining space station within the next hundred years. The population problem is currently floating around in the BILLIONS of people area. I'm not a scientist or anything, but Mars doesn't look like a viable solution to population issues. Continuing the species after earth implodes? (Which, by the way, won't happen.) Yes. Somewhere for people to expand to so they don't have to change their hideous wasteful lifestyles and can have as many damn kids as they want? NO.

Looking at the problem as "we need more space for all these people" is completely backwards. It should be "we need less people because we don't have space". What do we need all those people for anyway? Improve QUALITY not quantity.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's population!

Post by Bamfette »

I agree with you Draz. I think my thing though is, i don't see Mars as a NECESSITY, but as something I think alot of people WANT to do, no matter what the population is. there are LOTS of people who would jump at the opportunity if it was a reality.

and actually, the smaller the colony is, the harder it would be to be self sustaining. you'd need a couple hundred to a thousand people at minimum for it to be self sufficient. otherwise there is just not enough labor to handle gathering food, materials, power, construction and administration. and any solutions to those needs couldn't be justified in cost unless it supported at least that many eventually, and preferably more, in the 1-200 thousand range. but i really don't think it would be hard to get that many people to volunteer. people would PAY to do it. then you just have the problem of getting them all there. But with privately owned spacecraft companies such as Virgin Galactic and others becoming a reality (the next Space Prize is for a spacecraft that can reach high orbit and dock with a space station. a privately owned spacecraft that can go to Mars isn't THAT far off, in light of that.) hell, stick a hotel on Mars with some sightseeing tours and people would probably pay several million dollars for a week long trip to help fund the project retroactively. look how much people are willing to pay for an hour long flight in Space Ship One. People pay thousands of dollars just to go through astronaut TRAINING with the Canadian Arrow facility. a trip to the Space Station costs 20 million, and people have payed it. a trip around the moon costs $100,000,000 with Space Adventures, and people WILL pay it. I mean, i sure as hell can't pay that kind of money, but if it helps space tourism to expand (and eventually lower costs with any luck) I'm all for exorbitant price tags to get things rolling...

*edit, oh yeah. i keep forgetting to make this point. while it is true that many western countries are seeing a decrease in birth rate, this is a global problem, not a local one. what's happening in Africa, China and India affects us. look at the diseases that have been a major threat in the 20th century. Where have most of them come from? all it takes is one person getting on a plane. I was in Toronto during the SARS outbreak. that's all it was, one old lady getting on a plane, and people started dying and were afraid to go out in public. thankfully it wasn't TOO deadly, it only killed a handfull of people in Canada 'only' 44, and 800 worldwide, but imagine if it WAS somethig more deadly or more contageous. and these diseases tend to pop up in the first palce in highly overpopulated areas with medical systems unable to keep up with the population. It's in our best interest to help them rather than leave them to their own devices.



[Edited on 10/4/06 by Bamfette]
Garble
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 11:15 pm
Title: Weirdsmith
Location: The bottom of your mind
Contact:

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's populatio

Post by Garble »

I think the perception of population growth is a bit distorted by the "Baby Boom".

At one point the population jumped so quickly it looked like the earth would overflow in matter of decades.

We're just now coming off of the "Boom" and I actually hear/read people talk about how the population is decreasing so fast that at this "rate" we won't have enough workers to keep the world functioning.

Historically, human population has been growing exponentially for a long time. And over-population is still a very real problem. But I think the baby boomers kind of threw off our understanding of it.
chicory
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:50 pm

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's populatio

Post by chicory »

World population was growing exponentially long before the baby boom. Besides, like the black death which did nothing to slow growth (b/c ideology and behavior remained the same), it didn't have that much of an impact.

From Daniel Quinn - The Story of B

3 million years ago - Human beings one species among many - no huge impact on environment - growth rate glacial

Beginning of the Neolithic - global presence
10,000 years ago - Human Population 10 million

Invention of totaltarian agriculture

5000BCE - Population 20 million (5,000 years to double)
3000BCE - 50 million (2,000 years)
1400BCE - 100 million (1600 yrs)
0 - 200 million (1400 yrs)
1200CE - 400 million (1200 yrs)
1700CE - 800ya - 800 million (500 yrs)
1900CE - 300ya - 1.6 billion (200 yrs)
1960CE - 3 billion (60 yrs)
2000CE - 6 billion (30 yrs)

Know what else happened 10,000 years ago? It's when the opposite of this happened:
Posted by The Drastic Spastic
Now that people (women) aren't expected to start cranking out the kids as soon as they hit puberty, the population growth has dropped substantially. They get jobs, and by the time they realize that they want some kids they don't have time for more than one or two. Perfect solution.
I think women in Africa and the Middle east and regions of Asia are still expected to reproduce until it kills them. And then any region that isn't so liberal as to allow their women to work and be the one to choose when and how many children they have.

Maybe - if women's rights don't continue to be eroded the population will level off. But, in order to get back to the levels that the earth would support and in order to share the earth with other species (those that are left) there needs to be a huge reduction in people.

There's no easy way for that to happen though.
For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. ~Gino Dalpiaz
The Drastic Spastic
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Posts: 1846
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 3:01 am
Location: ROK

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's populatio

Post by The Drastic Spastic »

Originally posted by chicory
Posted by The Drastic Spastic
Now that people (women) aren't expected to start cranking out the kids as soon as they hit puberty, the population growth has dropped substantially. They get jobs, and by the time they realize that they want some kids they don't have time for more than one or two. Perfect solution.
I think women in Africa and the Middle east and regions of Asia are still expected to reproduce until it kills them. And then any region that isn't so liberal as to allow their women to work and be the one to choose when and how many children they have.

Maybe - if women's rights don't continue to be eroded the population will level off. But, in order to get back to the levels that the earth would support and in order to share the earth with other species (those that are left) there needs to be a huge reduction in people.

There's no easy way for that to happen though.
Yeah, I only meant people in developed countries. I have no idea what to do about other countries. I'd be inclined to just leave them alone to dig their own graves, but Jill is right in that their problems can become ours. Education? Although what Steyn said about their freaking leaders doesn't give that approach much hope.
Und die Sonne spricht zu mir
chicory
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:50 pm

Scientist advocates genocide of 90% of the world's populatio

Post by chicory »

Life is v. v. bad in so many parts of the world.

Education is a great solution - but giving people info say on how things are done in the west, or in developed countries often makes them run to the other extreme. Since the west (and especially America) is the Great Satan.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 just makes me cry :cry. All those women who were doctors and lawyers and teachers no longer allowed to leave their houses. And a whole generation of girls trapped indoors instead of having childhoods and being barred from educations.

I blame that kind of thinking for all the world's problems.
For those who believe, no explanation is neccessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. ~Gino Dalpiaz
Post Reply