[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Advancements in technology face the law of diminishing returns by nature. Population growth has been exponential. A huge majority of the basic technology we use as a country was developed in the by the 1960s and hasn’t been significantly improved. Nothing is really that simple.
I mean if the solution to solving world hunger was as simple as growing beans in a hole in the desert, then there wouldn’t be world hunger.[/quote]
So it’s not creating any new nutritional value? You can cook a lot of grains at the same time or you can sprout a lot of grains at the same time. You still have to start with something though.
A lot of sprouted foods have more nutrition than when they were unsprouted. I’d have to look it up, but I think the phytic acid in a lot of grains ‘disappears’ as well.
I know it’s wiki but still…
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
Kansas… drive across it then tell me there is overcrowding…
I have driving across the US (multiple times), Canada twice and in just that I can assure you, overcrowding will not be an issue in the next 100 years for either of those countries…[/quote]
the only thing there to sustain life is open space , no means of employement , probably not enough infrastutcture to support MUCH more life [/quote]
Seriously? That is what you think about Kansas? No means of employment? Lol…[/quote]
OK please enlighten me how we could employ million in Kanas ?[/quote]
We already do employee a million people in Kansas, 1,477,800 actually.[/quote]
Oh I thought we were going to take all the over crowded conditions and dump them where the open spaces exist
OK please enlighten me how we could employ million in Kanas ?[/quote]
depends on what bussiness you want to start. Putting a car plant there would be a good choice. You need lots of space and access to a railway. People in kansas would be a lot less likely to join the UAW so your labor would be cheaper. Now, if you know anything about car manufacturing, when you build a car plant, your suppliers will follow. This decreases the distance their goods travel before arriving at the plant and decreases their overhead. so lets see, that could easily hire a few tens of thousands right there.
If i then have all these people, I’ll need places for them to shop, see the doctor, get theri cars fixed, youll need schools, plumbers, builders, electricians.
Hopefully by now you see where I am going… one car plant = hiring a million plus people.
Now, back to the originial point… Overpopulations comes when we can no longer keep up with supply and demand for goods and services required to live… I dont know about you, but when was the last time you went into the supermarket and they didnt have what you needed? and I dont mean they were out of fruity pebbles, but that they ligitimately didnt have food… untill that happens, we dont have overpoplulation. And besides, before that would happen, food would become scarce, this would encourage people to have less kids and would have the net effect of solving itself… or we all end up eating a high protien brown goo… who knows…[/quote]
We live in a very blessed societey . But Idia China , Noth Korea Haiti all have problems from over crowding that could be remedied to some degree with the infrastructure that all think would magically apear in Kanas
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I read somewhere that everyone on Earth could fit inside of Texas with room to move around. [/quote]
Congress can keep being pussies about immigration and the truth of this will be tested.
Wikipedia claims that Texas is 696200km^2 we can approximate as 600000km^2 OR 600000000000m^2. Assuming that there are 6000000000 people in the world, that means you could fit them all into Texas with 100m^2 each.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We live in a very blessed societey . But Idia China , Noth Korea Haiti all have problems from over crowding that could be remedied to some degree with the infrastructure that all think would magically apear in Kanas [/quote]
magic nothing. I work with a local power company and they are always looking for new places to install “infrastructure” because it means more cash in their pocket. They even do research to help companies cut their power costs (odd for a power company right?) because when a company saves money, its less stress on the grid and a company that is more likely to stay in bussiness… OMFG, forward thinking !!!
Those who propose that we kill yourself to solve world overpopulation are either fucking dumb or christian. How about making the number of birth lower than the number of death. No that would be asking too much for beasts like you. Let’s all make babies and overcrowd the land until life isnt worth anything. Let’s all make babies until life is even more miserable than it already is for the majority of people who can’t post here.
This idea of controlling the population goes again a primal impulsion that is the survival of the specie. That’s why lots of people can’t accept it. They are retarded from an evolution standpoint
Also when looking at the dimension of the land and how much people there is you have to take in consideration that lot of this land is either polluted, or that it is too cold too live in or too accidented.
We are in 2010 not in 1970. The world has never been uglier and more chaotic than now. If you oppose this you must be pretty sheltered. stop taking your obscure little box for the world.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Overpopulation is a myth/scare tactic.
If we needed more food, agriculture will expand, food waste recycling(I saw this in the UK for mulch/compost/fertilizer).
Floating gardens, greenhouses, parking garage/multi level cattle ranches. I saw this other thing where this guy was sprouting 1500 lbs of various beans in the desert in a 9x9x9 hole.
Focusing on nutrition based food vs empty calories(McDonalds etc).
Keep in mind this is just random stuff that I’ve come across on the internet, it’s not even being implemented on a large scale.[/quote]
who wanna do that. Why not reduce the population and stop sweating the small stuff. If you want to waste all your time designing, managing and using efficient green stuff because youhave so much ressouce to consume then go for it. There is more interesting things to do.
I would rather live in a world where I could waste everything
There are only two ways population control can be pursued: voluntarily and forced. If citizens realize the damage they are doing by overpopulating the earth, they could voluntarily choose to only have one child. This child will then have the resources of the entire family rather than being dispersed from >1 children. I would like to see this method occur as I think it’s the most rationale. Sadly, the people of the world are less than rationale. This has lead to me contemplate the second method: forced. I’ve come up with many ways in my head that population control could be forced, but be done humanely (nobody would suffer and nobody would be murdered).
While I’ll be the first to agree that this is one of the biggest violations of human rights one could pursue, it might become necessary in the future. Let me explain my method to forced population control: controlled chemical serialization of alcoholic products. The basic premise is to select a popular brand of alcoholic beverage that will be consumed by young people and introduce a chemical sterilizing substance within it. Obviously, nobody would know about this occurring as this would defeat the whole purpose (nobody would drink it). The product must have no side effects other than serialization of both males and females (obviously the side effects would have to be greatly understood before this could even be contemplated). The reason I chose alcohol (as well as a popular alcoholic product) is because 1) it will not be consumed by pregnant women and 2) it will target populations where the fertility rate is highest (20 somethings). This program would be enacted for several months to years until a good percentage of the population has been effected. Once the serialization has occurred, the product can be removed from the market. Great care would have to be taken to ensure that the product does not end up in rivers, lakes, or other areas where it could effect wild life. I would think the best way to ensure this is to make this an expensive alcohol so customers would only buy shots rather than the entire bottle to take home and potentially introduce to the environment. Is this plan somewhat insane? Yes. Is it the most humane forced program around? I personally believe so. To summarize the benefits 1) Nobody would be killed (children simply couldn’t even make it to the very first stages of development) 2) Nobody would be in pain (perhaps mental pain from not being able to bear children, but no physical pain) 3) The wild life and environment of the world will be protected.
What about when everyone is pissing it back out?[/quote]
This would necessitate the need for the chemical to be broken down completely before leaving the body. I’m sure some well paid chemist could solve this one
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There are only two ways population control can be pursued: voluntarily and forced. If citizens realize the damage they are doing by overpopulating the earth, they could voluntarily choose to only have one child. This child will then have the resources of the entire family rather than being dispersed from >1 children. I would like to see this method occur as I think it’s the most rationale. Sadly, the people of the world are less than rationale. This has lead to me contemplate the second method: forced. I’ve come up with many ways in my head that population control could be forced, but be done humanely (nobody would suffer and nobody would be murdered).
While I’ll be the first to agree that this is one of the biggest violations of human rights one could pursue, it might become necessary in the future. Let me explain my method to forced population control: controlled chemical serialization of alcoholic products. The basic premise is to select a popular brand of alcoholic beverage that will be consumed by young people and introduce a chemical sterilizing substance within it. Obviously, nobody would know about this occurring as this would defeat the whole purpose (nobody would drink it). The product must have no side effects other than serialization of both males and females (obviously the side effects would have to be greatly understood before this could even be contemplated). The reason I chose alcohol (as well as a popular alcoholic product) is because 1) it will not be consumed by pregnant women and 2) it will target populations where the fertility rate is highest (20 somethings). This program would be enacted for several months to years until a good percentage of the population has been effected. Once the serialization has occurred, the product can be removed from the market. Great care would have to be taken to ensure that the product does not end up in rivers, lakes, or other areas where it could effect wild life. I would think the best way to ensure this is to make this an expensive alcohol so customers would only buy shots rather than the entire bottle to take home and potentially introduce to the environment. Is this plan somewhat insane? Yes. Is it the most humane forced program around? I personally believe so. To summarize the benefits 1) Nobody would be killed (children simply couldn’t even make it to the very first stages of development) 2) Nobody would be in pain (perhaps mental pain from not being able to bear children, but no physical pain) 3) The wild life and environment of the world will be protected.[/quote]
wow this is crazy I think about the exact same thing all the time and I am also persuaded it would be the greatest thing for humanity.
If you want to start an secret organisation to save the world just send me a pm and I’ll join. We will need chemists, biologists, factory owner, worker, a distribution network etc
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
controlled chemical serialization of alcoholic products. quote]
this is crazy I think about the exact same thing all the time
[/quote]
Either you two are just trolling, or your legitly Fed in the head. People like you are the reason I believe firmly that our military needs to start targeting domestic terrorists (which you all are). You saying you believe in removing peoples freedom… how fed up are you???
The above is what your basically saying… congradulations, your officially a terrorist…
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There are only two ways population control can be pursued: voluntarily and forced. If citizens realize the damage they are doing by overpopulating the earth, they could voluntarily choose to only have one child. This child will then have the resources of the entire family rather than being dispersed from >1 children. I would like to see this method occur as I think it’s the most rationale. Sadly, the people of the world are less than rationale. This has lead to me contemplate the second method: forced. I’ve come up with many ways in my head that population control could be forced, but be done humanely (nobody would suffer and nobody would be murdered).
While I’ll be the first to agree that this is one of the biggest violations of human rights one could pursue, it might become necessary in the future. Let me explain my method to forced population control: controlled chemical serialization of alcoholic products. The basic premise is to select a popular brand of alcoholic beverage that will be consumed by young people and introduce a chemical sterilizing substance within it. Obviously, nobody would know about this occurring as this would defeat the whole purpose (nobody would drink it). The product must have no side effects other than serialization of both males and females (obviously the side effects would have to be greatly understood before this could even be contemplated). The reason I chose alcohol (as well as a popular alcoholic product) is because 1) it will not be consumed by pregnant women and 2) it will target populations where the fertility rate is highest (20 somethings). This program would be enacted for several months to years until a good percentage of the population has been effected. Once the serialization has occurred, the product can be removed from the market. Great care would have to be taken to ensure that the product does not end up in rivers, lakes, or other areas where it could effect wild life. I would think the best way to ensure this is to make this an expensive alcohol so customers would only buy shots rather than the entire bottle to take home and potentially introduce to the environment. Is this plan somewhat insane? Yes. Is it the most humane forced program around? I personally believe so. To summarize the benefits 1) Nobody would be killed (children simply couldn’t even make it to the very first stages of development) 2) Nobody would be in pain (perhaps mental pain from not being able to bear children, but no physical pain) 3) The wild life and environment of the world will be protected.[/quote]
wow this is crazy I think about the exact same thing all the time and I am also persuaded it would be the greatest thing for humanity.
If you want to start an secret organisation to save the world just send me a pm and I’ll join. We will need chemists, biologists, factory owner, worker, a distribution network etc
