1 in 122 people in the world are refugees

we need to reduce the number of people in the world

while we ignore this it can and will only get worse

Reply 3

silverbolt

19

on the one hand, the humane thing to do is to help these people

on the other the EU is not a charity, 57 million. Thats a hell of a lot of people, where are they supposed to go? Where will they find housing? food? education? healthcare? employment?

The EU has its own problems without having 57 million starving unfortunates landing on its shores cup in hand

Reply 4

OP

Original post by silverbolt

on the one hand, the humane thing to do is to help these people

on the other the EU is not a charity, 57 million. Thats a hell of a lot of people, where are they supposed to go? Where will they find housing? food? education? healthcare? employment?

The EU has its own problems without having 57 million starving unfortunates landing on its shores cup in hand

Just to add to this -

If all the refugees and internally displaced people in the world were to form one country, it would be the 24th biggest country in the world - only two places below the UK.

Reply 5

saeed97

5

Wtf. How can people be so sick in the head to hope that a disease wipes out half the worlds population. If it does happen then i hope these people face exactly what they wish for

Reply 6

OP

Original post by DiddyDec

We need an uncurable disease to wipe out 50% (maybe more) of the world population. Then there will be more land and resources to go around reducing the need for war.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If the disease is uncurable, what's to stop it wiping out only 50% of the world population and not 100%?

Reply 7

Original post by localblackguy

If the disease is uncurable, what's to stop it wiping out only 50% of the world population and not 100%?

then it wouldn't be a disease that wiped out 50% of the population

Reply 8

OP

Original post by PopaPork

then it wouldn't be a disease that wiped out 50% of the population

Because diseases just up and go once they've hit their target percentage of the population right?

Reply 9

Rakas21

21

Original post by DiddyDec

We need an uncurable disease to wipe out 50% (maybe more) of the world population. Then there will be more land and resources to go around reducing the need for war.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Land and resource production are not the problem, the world already has enough food, water, energy ect.. the problem is distribution. Africa for example can't afford to build desalinisation plants and nuclear plants.

The other more pressing concern is political instability and dictatorships. The Muslim world is incapable of governing itself and parts of Africa are highly corrupt, under dictatorships or have periodic civil wars.

Reply 10

Original post by localblackguy

Because diseases just up and go once they've hit their target percentage of the population right?

oh come on it just a silly statement in a forum ffs it's not real life.

But if people we to learn about contraception and responsibility rather than breeding like rabbits we would 'need' such a thing

Reply 11

Original post by Rakas21

The other more pressing concern is political instability and dictatorships. The Muslim world is incapable of governing itself and parts of Africa are highly corrupt, under dictatorships or have periodic civil wars.

Quite

without an honest look at what is casing the problems we will never find a solution

Reply 12

OP

Original post by PopaPork

oh come on it just a silly statement in a forum ffs it's not real life.

But if people we to learn about contraception and responsibility rather than breeding like rabbits we would 'need' such a thing

This reminds me, apparently more than half of the refugees are children.. God knows what's gonna happen in 20-30 years time when they start having kids themselves.

Reply 13