Just move to North Wales. We live literally hundreds of metres from an area of outstanding natural beauty and whilst there are little towns dotted around the place there is plenty of space to roam :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
Printable View
Just move to North Wales. We live literally hundreds of metres from an area of outstanding natural beauty and whilst there are little towns dotted around the place there is plenty of space to roam :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
I often thought about that too. Norway and Finland might also be a good choice. And Siberia would be a sure hit. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
But 30 years ago I could walk for hours without seeing a road or hearing a car, now it is impossible in the very same places. :(
I don't understand why someone should be ashamed for considering the idea of a need for limiting the population. There's no shame here, as the idea is based on the planet's resources and how they can sustain life. It's simple logic that the population of the planet is rising exponentially, whereas the resources that we use are not increasing.
So, at some point there are too many people, whether it's now or in the future. It's irreponsible NOT to consider that scenario, not shameful to think about it. No-one has proposed a cull.
The question of how we tackle a problem of overpopulation is another thing entirely. Apart from the cultural sensitivites, and the unequal sharing out of riches, it's a really difficult problem to overcome.
But also, if we manage to get people on board with the idea of limiting reproduction, where does it leave society? You know, grow up, finish school, meet someone nice, get a home, settle down, and then....what? Watch TV? Play computer games? Wifeswapping clubs? What are people expected to do with their lives?
There are already too many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango
Luckily for us in developed countries the people living in 3rd world countries are not using the same amount of resources as we do, otherwise we would have huge problems, and this also explains why developed countries have no real interest in improving those 3rd world countries' situation.
how bad would it be if world war 1 and 2 did not happen
world war 1 and world war 2 over 200,000,000 dead
It's at least one thing that communism has got right - the ability to control the population. Democracy will struggle more to implement such measures. You don't have to worry about losing the next election if you're the only political party.
</end controversy>
Kind of a brutal and expensive birth control pill I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolt
There are too much people already and they are literally consuming the planet, exterminating all (other) animals. This can't be right IMO.
You sound like my wife schmenke :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
I have to disagree about the fresh water though. Yes, there is a limited supply of fresh water in some countries/areas, but on a whole most countries are fine water wise if their resources are maintained adequately. Many countries border the ocean, where dessalination plants can produce fresh water from the vastness that is our oceans. I mean, Dubai for example relies solely on this type of water supply and they have grown at a rediculous rate over the last 20 years. The reason many countries don't go this route? "It's too expensive". That is another prime example of man making problems worse for himself when it could be made better with a bit more willpower and forgetting about money for once. Governments can buy fancy cars, but they can't build dessalination plants? The world is screwed up man!
There are plenty of resources on this planet for our current population, they are just not managed properly and sadly never will be.
All the weekend I was terorised that someone will notice that I "ate" three zeroes during conversion ( although the reasonong was correct ). Happy to see that nobody did. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
So: 33000 square km = 33000000000square m