If your religious and believe your going to a better place it shouldn't be an issue, myself being an atheist and fellow atheists therefore should not be subject to it as we believe there is nothing thereafter so need to cling to life as long as possible!
Replies
- OROregongirlDec 10, 2010
I think there are better ways to curb the population growth.
Such as, mandatory completely reversible sterilization, having to pass a "Parental Aptitude Test", and instating a limit of 2 children per couple.
Pretty much, stop breeding early, stop breeding if you're too poor, and stop having eight babies.
ReactReply - OROregongirlDec 10, 2010
I was referring to a perfect world of course lol. I already know that none of that would fly here in the US. I'll just keep on dreaming.
ReactReply - TO
TonyJ63Dec 10, 2010Sorry, don't know what the hell happened with the formatting!
ReactReply - JA
JackNeilsonDec 10, 2010Re the title of this thread. If serious I would have been euthanised three years ago and therefore be unable to reply to the post. I have contributed to this world in many ways and at my present age I will not be adding any further individuals to the population increase. How therefore do you think euthanasia will solve this problem?
ReactReply - VIVixOriginal PosterDec 10, 2010
great point jack, it was posted a little tongue in cheek, playing devils advocate, i'm glad your still around! however, for someone to believe that because they can get the worlds population into idaho there isn't a problem is somewhat naive and ignorant, wouldn't you agree? I wonder what our levels of natural resources will be like in 100yrs, or indeed the polution levels?
ReactReply - MEMemberDec 10, 2010
All the above have made strong, sensible points. In the US, there is no one in government that would vote for some of the sensible ideas because they want to be RE-ELECTED. That said, anyone over 70 would fight to stay alive. Anyone under 70 would be despondent about a mandatory shut 0ff age.
ReactReply - VIVixOriginal PosterDec 10, 2010Do you think that if the chatroom moderators paid more attention to the world population than to your wagging your willy on cam, this "problem" wouldn't exist? You're out of your depth, kid. Goherefor a site that's more at your level.[/quote] The rantings of an elderly man who is obviously nearly 70, tries to act above everyone else and wonders why hes sat in a small room on his own wondering if black is the only color that slims down his flaccid body, alas abuse is all he has left poor soul, well that and his dictionary and encyclopedia and the local libraries reference section, so he can look clever in the forums with his "quotes". You see, he doesn't go in the chat room because hes above that....please don't abuse him, simply thank him for his contribution and wish him a happy evening with his books and cocoa...thanks for your comments nudeinma, but please refrain from the sarcasm and abuse (surprising someone so articulate has to resort to it, have you had your bedtime tablets yet?), or simply go into someone else's post and leave this to nice people with friends.ReactReply
- ST
SteveDec 10, 2010Welfare? It's the desperately poor countries which have the highest rates of reproduction. Rasing standards of living lowers population growth. Yes, there's a fair argument that many welfare programs don't succeed in doing that, but social welfare programs in general DO help control population.
70? Isn't that a little late, since very few folks over 70 are having children and the reduction of years-of-life-cluttering-up-the-planet is lower, the older the reducee?? Knocking off one 25 or 30-year old would have the population impact of ten or a dozen elders, and they'd make better organ donors, too. I seem to recall that there's a standing suggestion to begin with the Irish.ReactReply - JAJackNeilsonDec 11, 2010
Well it would appear that VIX has managed to create another contentious thread. His obvious contempt for NIM who has contributed many serious and timely conversations to this forum and who has gained a great deal of respect from other posters seems to be what drives him. Perhaps instead of starting threads which are bound to result in controversy of a negative rather than informative and constructive conversation he should give the respect he obviously believes is due to him. This is not to say that we must all agree or that differences of opinion are bad but they can be discussed in a reasonable manner and perhaps the original question could be phrased in a non-provocative manner leading to a useful discussion. As to NIM there have been times when he and I have disagreed on a particular subject but we have been able to discuss it rationally and have never resorted to namecalling or racking up the intensity of our disagreement.
ReactReply - NUNudeInNewJerseyDec 11, 2010[quote]If your religious and believe your going to a better place it shouldn't be an issue, myself being an atheist and fellow atheists therefore should not be subject to it as we believe there is nothing thereafter so need to cling to life as long as possible![/quote] Now you did it. You woke the mighty NIM. Now we have to put with quote after quote again and again. Oh well he'll drift off again soonReactReply
- VIVixOriginal PosterDec 11, 2010Game, set and match to NIM The Magnificent, NIM The Mighty, NIM The Glorious, NIM The Invincible. Next?[/quote] NIM the magnificent who strives to prove how clever he is by entering long boring comments and quotes with nice big fancy words....i look forward to his posting of a topic in the forum, or does he only hijack others where-it appears- hes not wanted and all are bored with him? Leave him alone my fellow nudists this is all he has, take it away from him and his life is worthless. Please carry on with your comments/quotes NIM, i cant vouch for others but i personally skip them anyway, i only have an hour or two online!ReactReply
- GA
gabareDec 11, 2010who remembers the movie " SOYLENT GREEN" this will be future governments way to solve over population, oh or it could be america's new socialist healthcare system whose lawmakers decide when you are doomed... same principle..
ReactReply - CD
Cheri Donna DawsonDec 12, 2010[quote]who remembers the movie " SOYLENT GREEN" this will be future governments way to solve over population, oh or it could be america's new socialist healthcare system whose lawmakers decide when you are doomed... same principle..[/quote] I definitely remember it. I'm happy at age 63. Yesterday we got "senior citizen" movie theatre tickets.ReactReply - DE
DesertRatDec 12, 2010This sounds a little too much like big brother! First 70 year olds do not contribute to the population increase. In order to maintain a constant population number, each couple needs to produce 2 plus children. We can't have a portion of a child so lets say 3 children per couple. If a woman has produced 3 offspring or a man has fathered 3 children, they should be sterilized. This figure can be adjusted by people who don't wish to procreate. Their allottment can be assigned to someone else and they can choose sterialization. This is an insane scenario.
The problem with population growth is that the more educated and affulent people are not producing offspring and the poor, uneducated, under classes are over producing. There is also a problem in some parts of the world of encouraging every man to have multiple wives, who he would marry at a very early age so she can produce many children through he childbearing years. There also is a problem with the emphasis of having sons. Many couples will keep producing children until they have a son. In these cultures girls are considered to be a financial burden. In advanced cultures, girls can be a tremendous asset, but unfortunately not enough of the world is that culturally advanced.
To answer your first question; Killing off 70+ year olds will not do anything to solve the population bomb. Getting rid of the baby factories, both male and female, will help. Encouraging the 3 child per couple rule in the affluent countries will help maintain stability.ReactReply - YRyrrallDec 12, 2010
OK, I am not at all religious, and my cuyrrent age, I view your query as potentially fatal.
FWIW, which ain;t much, I am now 69ReactReply - DADanandJanetteDec 12, 2010
I can't believe some people actually consider this idiotic suggestion as anything remotely viable, ethical or moral. The OP just seems to be a bomb-throwing attention whore. I've watched this thread over the last couple of days and managed to keep my mouth shut, but an over-abundance of self respect has broken my silence. He must have a giant swaztika on his bedroom wall if he only posted "a little tongue in cheek". I just visited my still-healthy 85 year old mother today, I guess she's 15 years overdue for the gas chamber.
ReactReply - OROregongirlDec 12, 2010
I'm relatively young and I love the movie Soylent Green lol! I just wish I could find a good copy of it. :(
I guess my little schpeel wasn't so much about population control as it was about my desire to make sure that children who are born have the opportunity to be well taken care of.
ReactReply - EA
EarthlingFeb 4, 2011[quote]I can't believe some people actually consider this idiotic suggestion as anything remotely viable, ethical or moral. The OP just seems to be a bomb-throwing attention whore. I've watched this thread over the last couple of days and managed to keep my mouth shut, but an over-abundance of self respect has broken my silence. He must have a giant swaztika on his bedroom wall if he only posted "a little tongue in cheek". I just visited my still-healthy 85 year old mother today, I guess she's 15 years overdue for the gas chamber.[/quote] God BlessReactReply - MAmattlionFeb 4, 2011
No cause most people arnt too fertile at 70 SO IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE
ReactReply - CDCheri Donna DawsonFeb 5, 2011[quote]No cause most people arnt too fertile at 70 SO IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE[/quote] Men may be able to inpregnate a women, but women at age 70 are unlikely to conceive. :)ReactReply