Global Overpopulation - Is Human Culling the Answer?

I believe very strongly that population growth needs to be controlled, but I am not going to elaborate any further because I do not want to be seen to be agreeing with the moron who started this thread.

What a incredibly stupid way to start a discussion on such an important issue...

The answer lies in education, if you ask me. We must educate those less fortunate than ourselves that contraception is a valuable tool, and that having 5 or more children is probably not a good idea (like many in sub-Saharan Africa believe it to be).
.

you really need to read up about this before making sweeping statements like that

many studies suggest that children “pay for themselves” far before their parents’ retirement and even in comparatively developed countries are still an excellent investment. A report of the economic activities of children in a village in Bangladesh found that boys are economically active from age six, produce more than they consume by age twelve and by fifteen they have produced more than they have consumed over their lifetime so far

for example: (Cain, M. T. (1977). The Economic Activities of Children in a Village in Bangladesh . Population and Development Review , 201-227.)

There's no point, you're arguing with a moron here. I see no need to entertain his stupidity.

Idiot, I think not.

I find your aggressive views towards the people of the West both threatening and offensive.

Feed people to people.
Population goes down and resources don't run out.
Simple really, or am I missing something?

Why would I want to cull myself?

I have written to him for his views on which method of culling would be best, but I am still awaiting the reply. I will get back to you all when I receive it.

No no I totally agree, start with yourself and the world will follow.

Having watched the latest episode of Horizon which examined the seriousness of the threat posed by growing overpopulation, I've been thinking. We need to take serious action. 6 billion people is already a too great a number to be sustained on this planet, never mind the 9 billion which is what the population is expected to be in 40 years time. Simply, food and water shortages are going to become increasingly common. Human suffering will reach unimaginable scales.

I propose that humane culling is the only solution. It makes me sick to think of these slut-women in the third world (and indeed here) giving birth to 6, 7 or 8 or more children without giving any thought for the planet. The Vatican is a big problem, people in sub-Saharan Africa and in South America have been brainwashed into believing condoms are not to be used due to the Vaticans lies, but I feel that it is too late. The only answer, I'm afraid, will be to cull. If they ('they' being third world overpopulated countries) don't want to take charge of the situation, then we must.

I don't know if chemical culling is the most humane option (chem trials in the sky maybe?), or whether a bombardment of atomic bombs is the answer. All I know is that something needs to be done.

Did you actually watch the program? It's conclusion was that, with current technology, the earth could sustain 15 billion people if we shared the resources equally. With a reduction in waste and a boost in technology over the next 20 years? Probably 20 billion.

The problem isn't overpopulation. The problem is the greed, exploitation, arrogance, ignorance, religion, bigotry and ludditism of the West.

Yes, and it said something about everybody on the planet having to live like people in India have to live.
If we share the resources equally, our lifestyles in the West will have to suffer a huuuuge amount.

Are you willing right now to turn your computer off, and never turn it on again, to save electricity? Are you willing to never ever fly abroad for a foreign holiday again, or use your car for recreational purposes?
Are you?

I sure as hell ain't, however selfish that sounds, and most people in the West ultimately aren't either.

Unfortunately, families in the 3rd world will always be having insurance births because it is increases the chances of the family getting out of poverty. Only difference now is that less of those kids are dying and less will continue to die in future as medical care and diets improve in the 3rd world. The only 'solution' is to do what china did, one child for each family in africa, middle east, asia etc. Look at china now, a booming economy that CAN sustain itself and is set to overtake the US in 12 years

Any woman in the west, whatever colour, should be steralised if it is her perogative to have 10-13 kids for the sake of benefits. This will prevent the current 'dumbing down' of the human race aswell.