|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:24 am
Alright, as things are we're pretty crowded on earth, there are new people being born everyday, luckily enough, we've go things going both ways, however, new studies are being performed that could enable people to not-age, meaning, we could actuly live to be 1000 or so with no major side effects, of course, such an end would be years in coming; still, what do you think would happen if this was possible, and the world became over populated?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:50 am
Although modern science continues to extend our metaphorical expiration dates, there are still limiting factors to population growth; namely violence. I should like to live long enough to do whatever I wish, but, in the same, if I could live so long, my goals would likely be those still beyond my years. It saddens me to think so, but with over-population, as we've seen, there comes a struggle for resources that nearly always ends in violence. The only way that I see of solving this is to reallocate people or to have strict limits on population growth. Ho hum. I ought to write more but the topic exhausts me. My apologies. b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:16 pm
Personally, I'd rather have an extremely short life span.
If the world were to become overpopulated, and we had not yet developed the proper technology for space-travel, I predict that the world will dissolve into a war over natural resources that will end with either a nuclear holocaust, a dystopian anarchy (probably redundant), or the complete annihilation of the human race.
Though, at the rate human intelligence is declining, I have a feeling we'd all kill each other off or die from our own stupidity long before this planet becomes overpopulated, and "intelligence" will no longer have the same definition it does today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:45 pm
Hmm..i'm sure you're right about the violence, but boxtop, inteligence in the general sense is declining, however, there are many individuals whose intelect is increasing greatly, every day more and more steps are being taken to further man-kinds knowledge of the natural world, in my opinion, the decline of intelegence is greatly due to alot of would be "Gangsta's" who go around doing drugs, having sex, and getting drunk, not caring for anything intelectual, wheras those who pursue intelect and reason often do it with a great vigor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:54 pm
Dreccas in my opinion, the decline of intelegence is greatly due to alot of would be "Gangsta's" who go around doing drugs, having sex, and getting drunk, not caring for anything intelectual Personally, I blame the Internet and the rise of technology. I wish the Internet was restricted to government and business use only. Quote: inteligence in the general sense is declining That's what I meant to say. I was concerned that human intelligence would drop so much that "intelligent" would not longer be a word. Quote: however, there are many individuals whose intelect is increasing greatly From my standpoint, these people are the minority, or they just may be hard to spot in a crowd of loud, stupid people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:22 pm
If the world was threatening to be overpopulated, I'd make an island of pure recycled material in international waters and make it a no-rules barred voluntary gladiator arena. The resulting entertainment would make me a fortune when I broadcast it on live television and the bloodshed would decrease the surplus population. It's win-win. Plus, with this as a vent, less crime would occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:17 am
Dreccas Alright, as things are we're pretty crowded on earth, there are new people being born everyday, luckily enough, we've go things going both ways, however, new studies are being performed that could enable people to not-age, meaning, we could actuly live to be 1000 or so with no major side effects, of course, such an end would be years in coming; still, what do you think would happen if this was possible, and the world became over populated? 
[First off, I would seriously go on a reckless killing spree]
[People do not deserve the right to live forever]
[It's not right and should not be excepted]
[I certainitly don't want to live a day past 60]
[With all the bull s**t consumption we have already, adding to the cost of living will only throw us all in the dirt]
[We all die at some point. And if we were to be given life eternal then where the hell would death be]
[Death gives us fear and a sense of wonder of the unknown. Why take that away]
[And on the flip side, do you really want to live out all your friends, make new ones, live them out, and so on? Eventually you'll get sick and tired of the passing away of loved ones, and ultimately, kill yourself]
[With the current population situation, it's already too much]
[My full opinion is to take out those who are not needed]
[Blow up the middle east, excluding India, and take out Africa]
[These both extremely populated areas are filled with people that hardly do anything. Sure there are the good folk and the ones suffering, but without sacrifice, there can not be gain]
[The ones suffering will be put to peace anyway]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:45 pm
I surely wouldn't support the next thing I'm about to say but has anybody thought of the actual occurance of soylent green? Creepy as hell but either way could be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:05 am
Quote: [First off, I would seriously go on a reckless killing spree] Many a serial killer have tried this and died in the attempt. Quote: [People do not deserve the right to live forever] You certainly don't have the right to make that decision. Quote: [It's not right and should not be excepted] Now this point here we are in agreement on. Eternal life while some could actually benefit from it. The norm is greatly leaning in the other direction. Quote: [We all die at some point. And if we were to be given life eternal then where the hell would death be] It would still be at our side. Eternal life doesn't mean you can never die. Quote: [Death gives us fear and a sense of wonder of the unknown. Why take that away] Funny, I could have sworn our senses gave us fear. Quote: [And on the flip side, do you really want to live out all your friends, make new ones, live them out, and so on? Eventually you'll get sick and tired of the passing away of loved ones, and ultimately, kill yourself] Short answer would be no. Quote: [With the current population situation, it's already too much] [My full opinion is to take out those who are not needed] [Blow up the middle east, excluding India, and take out Africa] [These both extremely populated areas are filled with people that hardly do anything. Sure there are the good folk and the ones suffering, but without sacrifice, there can not be gain] [The ones suffering will be put to peace anyway] That has to be some of the biggest hogwash I have heard all month. There is nothing to be "gained" from such an act, epic fail would be my summation of such a Hitler like statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:20 am
Mobius Nightshade If the world was threatening to be overpopulated, I'd make an island of pure recycled material in international waters and make it a no-rules barred voluntary gladiator arena. The resulting entertainment would make me a fortune when I broadcast it on live television and the bloodshed would decrease the surplus population. It's win-win. Plus, with this as a vent, less crime would occur. This one actually made me laugh. This solution would not only decrease the population. But more importantly it would be voluntary for those that wanted to die. But such an event while it would draw quite a few people in to watch. Would ultimately do very little for the population problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:02 am
So I guess no one would consider Soylent Green rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:40 pm
Of course not! Soylent Green is bland, like tofu! You need to re-invent it so that it is a feasible food product, like Human Hash; The Hungry Man Helps Himself To Human Hash!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:57 am
best realistic solution is one child for every person. if you get divorced and she gets coustody oh well you had your shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:00 am
Unfortunately there would be no way to enforce such a thing. That didn't involve some sort of increased public spending. Such as jail for those that broke this rule. And adoption for the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:28 am
in China the one-child law has had an interesting side effect; the population, though expanding daily, will suffer in the next couple decades due to lack of females.
maybe the problem will solve itself, like a fire which puts iteself out when it burns all the oxygen or fuel.... of course, humanity may go extinct and nature will have to start over again with the cockraches and lawyers, but is the long-term survival of the planet truly paramount to ours as a species?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
