Fixing the worlds problems. By the time they stop ignoring him, it'll be too late and he'll have already taken a huge dump on the table and eaten all their food Fixing the worlds problems By time they stop ignoring him it'll be too late and he'll have already taken a huge dump on table eaten all their food
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (62)
[ 62 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #5 - monkeyyninja
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(01/24/2013) [-]
as dark a proposition as this is, the planet is well overdue for another conventional war.
User avatar #9 to #5 - Sargeras
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Zombie apocalypse anyone?
#7 to #5 - Blarge **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#20 to #5 - anon id: 418a0a9f
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
But the last one was only 5 years ago.
User avatar #25 to #20 - monkeyyninja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
no, the last one ended in 1945
User avatar #6 to #5 - ssurtrebor **User deleted account**
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/24/2013) [-]
Or another Black Plague. I'm good with either.
User avatar #14 to #6 - stardustdragonlord
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
WE SHOULD TAKE THE HOMELESS AND FEED THEM TO THE HUNGRY.
#8 to #6 - Blarge **User deleted account**
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
#13 to #8 - verby
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
a plague spread by a war. :D
User avatar #24 to #13 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
A war against those who carry the plague
User avatar #36 to #24 - thatguywhohasbacon
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
A carry the who plague war those against?
User avatar #21 - Ruspanic
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
How do you propose we solve this problem? Mass killing? Forced abortion? A One-Child-Policy like China's? All of those are gross human-rights violations.

One of the main reasons for overpopulation (which is only really a problem in parts of the third world) is that historically high birth rates have not yet decreased to adjust to improved healthcare, a lower infant mortality rate, and a smaller need for farmhands (due to advances in agricultural technology and the growth of the non-agricultural economy).
Also, one of the best ways to slow or reverse population growth is women's education, because a) the longer women spend in school and worry about their careers, the longer they will put off having children and the less time they will have left to procreate, and b) they could actually be taught that popping out 7 kids is unsustainable.
Solving these problems is already on the agenda of human rights organizations, and if these goals can be accomplished it will help solve problems of overpopulation.

If these problems aren't solved in time, eventually birth rates will either fall anyway due to the decreased necessity of large families, or mortality rates will increase due to scarcity or other problems.
#47 to #21 - anon id: b96fa89c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Stop aiding countries who cannot think for themselve

Neuter retards who produce babies with no thought process

Put an age cap state pensions, so when you've cashed out and there's nothing left; become productive or die.

Invest more healthcare in enhancing productive life, not sustaining 'life' indefinitely.


User avatar #53 to #21 - yuckalzbackbitches [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
We don't need anything that extreme, all we have to do is make life harder for people with more than 2 or 3 kids, by raising their taxes and ****, making people not want to have that many kids, and 2nd we need more contraceptives out there, condoms, and the such, and even better neutering poor and stupid people once they've had a chance to breed.
User avatar #54 to #53 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
The raising taxes thing is basically what the One Child Policy is, except that in China the tax penalty is literally unaffordable for most middle class people.

I strongly oppose any sort of eugenics (neutering poor and stupid people). They have the right to reproduce, and we don't have the right to stop them by force. They are as much people and citizens as we are, and it is not justified to sacrifice their rights for the general welfare.
The contraception thing is obviously a good idea, though distribution and normalization might be a problem.

I think what I said in my earlier post is better. Improve and encourage education, and make it more accessible and socially normal - especially for girls. Also improve agricultural technology to produce more food with less effort and fewer resources. After all, overpopulation is only a problem insofar as it creates scarcity. In addition to alleviating scarcity, more efficient farming methods will allow people to get by with less work and a smaller labor force, and therefore they will have fewer children.

Bangladesh was able to lower its average fertility rate from 7 in the 1980s to around 2.3 today without committing genocide, forcing abortion, legally restricting reproduction, or castrating the poor. It did so basically in the ways I said - increased access to education and birth control, improved farming methods and more resilient crops, growth of manufacturing and service economies, etc. It's one of the most densely populated countries in the world (besides microstates like Monaco) and its population is technically still growing, but the growth rate is almost sustainable now. This is pretty incredible considering it's an extremely poor Islamic country.
User avatar #28 to #21 - supamonkey
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Orchestrate a war between India and China.
#51 to #28 - yuckalzbackbitches [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Lol you've got a point.
#30 - bazda
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
You could fit 4.2 Billion people, with 1 square acre of land each, inside the borders of Russia alone. I think we've got plenty of time before overpopulation is a problem.
User avatar #52 to #30 - yuckalzbackbitches [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
It's not space that's the problem its the demand for rescources
#32 to #30 - mtandy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
The theory is sound, but first you have to find 4,2 billion people who want to live in Russia.

pic not particularly related
#42 to #32 - wanicochil
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
#34 to #32 - bazda
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Well beggars can't be choosers. If over population becomes a legitimate issue, we'll just have to deal with it.
#43 to #34 - anon id: 8c6f6f7c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Space is not the problem. Resources are. We do not have enough food for everyone.
#17 - Eerudorc
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Overpopulation will likely not happen.

Short Reason: Not a high enough birth rate to keep up with the deaths.

Long Reason: A birth rate of at least 2.1 is needed to keep a population at any given level. (One for dad, one for mom, and .1 for the amount of children that will die before reaching reproductive age.) The US currently has a birth rate of 2.03, which is below the required rate for keeping a population at any given level. With more than 30 of the world's most populous countries expecting to see at least a 10% decline in pop. because of a birthrate below the replacement rate, and ten of those countries expecting a 20%+ drop, we will likely never reach unsustainable levels. In fact, it is predicted that world pop will peak around 9billion, then begin to shrink back down to a more comfortable level.

Why is this though? Why the huge explosion in population? Well, I'm glad you asked.
As we all know, people had a great deal of children in ye olden times. It was necessary to have at least six children to ensure two would survive. However, because of the increase in standard of living brought about by industrialization, less children were needed to ensure the survival of at least two. People didn't catch on to this though. So they kept having children and the children all lived. And then they had children. This explains the explosive growth in the last century.

With the raising of a child becoming more expensive than ever, it is very likely that many families will choose to have only one or two, and population levels will settle at an acceptable rate.



TL;DR: Overpopulation is likely a myth. No panic necessary.
#18 to #17 - yuckalzbackbitches [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
by Dick Smith

Until about two years ago, I had never thought about the population issue. It simply wasn't in my realm of thinking. However, one thing which gives me a little bit of solace is that most of my friends were the same.
In September 2009, my youngest daughter, Jenny, phoned me and said, “dad, they are all talking about human induced climate change, and they’re all going off to Copenhagen. Why don’t they talk about the ‘elephant in the room’”. I said, “Jenny, what’s that?”. She said, “population!”.
The instant she said the word, it was almost as if a light was turned on in my head. Within seconds I realised how stupid I had been. Here we were talking about problems which are facing our planet, but people weren't talking about the most obvious problem – too many people. I knew that we had something like 6.7 billion people in the world, and this was predicted to go to over 9 billion by 2050. But I’d never actually linked that with a great many of the problems we have in our world.
Yes, I knew that our oceans were being over-fished and stocks were reducing. I knew that our Federal Government was paying tens of millions of dollars to our farmers in the Murray Valley to stop farming and to bulldoze their crops because of a lack of water. But for some reason I’d never linked the two together – population and environmental degradation.
From that day on, I’ve spent my life getting as much information as I can about population and population growth. Yes, I’ve learned a lot. I have read over a dozen books on the issue – some claiming that the global warming / climate change story is all a giant hoax instigated by scientists who want more and more “gravy train” money from the government, others claiming that the world’s energy is a bottomless well and there will always be huge surpluses of energy available, and still others which say that there will be extraordinary problems in the future with our environment and quality of life as a result of unsustainable population growth.
However, a most important point is left out. Even though we may be able to grow to 100 million people in Australia – what would be the advantage in doing this? The question is why? Of course, to wealthy people, population growth will generally increase their prosperity and wealth. I know this, because I have made more money out of owning industrial and commercial buildings in Sydney over the last twenty-five years than I did in owning Dick Smith Electronics and Australian Geographic. So the wealthy will get more. But what about the average wage and salary earner and retiree? Possibly over 80% of our population?
I have a feeling it’s all “down hill” from now for most Australians as the population increases. I can’t think of any of our present problems in this world which are alleviated by more people. In fact, quite the opposite. I think unrestrained population growth will make virtually every problem more difficult.
Yes, we are told that efficiencies of scale will give us greater benefits. However, let’s look at our country compared with the USA. The USA has fifteen times our population, ie. fifteen times the efficiency of scale in a roughly similar land mass. Do the Americans have a higher standard of living? I don’t think so. Do they have better medical care? I don’t think so. Do they have better roads? Well, they certainly have more freeways, but their roads seem more gridlocked than ours. Do they have a better education system? There’s no evidence to suggest that they do.
I believe we in Australia are currently at a very “efficient” number of 22 million. Our Prime Minister said that he welcomed a “big Australia” of 36 million and at a later date said he didn’t really have a view on population numbers – that it was just going to happen.
But typical Australian families do have a view on population numbers. Believe it or not, an Australian family could have between fifteen and twenty children during their lifetime – few rarely do. Most Aussie families decide on an optimum number, whether it’s two, four or even more – the number that they know they can properly raise.
Seeing that Aussie families have a plan for population which isn’t the maximum, why doesn’t the same apply to Australia?
I believe it’s exactly the same with the population of a country. With 22 million, we have the potential to share in the wealth of this country. Increase the population to 44 million, and each person has the potential to share in half as much.
Now, by going to 44 million are we actually going to produce more? I doubt it. We are not a country who makes small gadgets in factories where you need lots of workers. We are, in fact, a country that earns most of its money from exporting minerals and from farming. Neither of these is labour intensive industries. I understand the total percentage of our workforce employed in mining in Australia is approximately 1.5%. Also, more people just means we can dig up our minerals and ship them off to other countries even faster, meaning less for future generations of Australians.
It’s the same with farming. Farming is highly efficient in Australia because of the broad acres, machinery and a small amount of labour. In fact, that’s the only way we can compete.
The big decision about a population increase is, “what’s in it for most Australians?”. I believe the answer is “less and less”. We would do better to try and curtail our population increase, and then concentrate on being truly sustainable – moving away from fossil fuels which are most likely polluting our environment into energy that is coming every day from the sun and other sustainable sources.

TL;DR: We are all ******
#22 to #18 - Eerudorc
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Except he's wrong too. [url deleted]
#23 to #22 - Eerudorc
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
http://www. youtube. com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zBS6f-JVvTY#!

******* links.
#39 - hugsta
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Put everyone over 100kg on the ultimate diet.
#41 to #39 - wanicochil
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
That everyone over 100kg isn't healthy and need to go on a diet
#37 - insevin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Did anyone notice the giant elephant in the room?
#38 to #37 - ewowo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Of course, everyone did, what a stupid comment.
User avatar #27 - organic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
What company is this, Solve-The-World's-Problems-Mart? Jesus Christ what does OP think a corporation is?
#15 - wyldek
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Umm, I don't really think overpopulation is a huge problem at this point. No matter how you look at it, we have a fair amount of time before it's unmanagable.

And what everyone always seems to forget is that with time comes technological advances (more efficient farming techniques, housing techniques so we can live in previously inhospitable areas, etc). The technology of a couple hundred years ago probably couldn't support the population we have now, and the same will probably be true in the future as well.

There's still plenty of space available, just not in places people want to live right now. The only REAL problem we have with overpopulation is our distribution system. We have plenty of food, but we are AWFUL at getting it where it needs to be.
User avatar #19 to #15 - ihatem
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
Unless we get really good and efficient with desalinization we may have a tough battle with 2.5% of the earth's water being drinkable
#49 - anon id: 8ef7a1e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
We have these things called fruits and vegetables, more grow as you plant them, and this great stuff called water, the majority of the planet is covered in it if only someone wants to filter it. It's a lie that we could run out of resources for our populations.
#50 to #49 - nephritho
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
This image has expired
not all the soil and weather are the same on earth
plants don't survive only on water
#48 - anon id: 8ef7a1e7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/25/2013) [-]
over population doesn't exist. If Texas was set up like NY city, we could fit all the people in the world within Texas' borders. Educate yourselves.