Get Friendly on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Image via Wikipedia
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the world is just overpopulated?
Water shortages, electricity shortages, looming food shortages, starving children, wars over land. All this could be put down to just “Too many people, Too little resources”. Imagine if we reduced the population by 25%?
Removed the lazy, terminally ill, over aged and generally useless hangers on.
Realistically, we could come up with a “means test”. We could set up an international board who stipulated a couple of basic questions. If you pass the means test, we let you carry on. If you fail we cull you. A bit like we as humans do when the grassy plains are over populated with antelope. Yet we don’t give them a means test, we just shoot them randomly. Actually not that randomly. We just aim at the one standing still.
So we start in the prisons and we just remove all the life sentence inmates. Then we look at those that would be a burden to society once they are released. We could then move on to the people who have no ambition to contribute to the betterment of society. Politicians I call them. Imagine removing the useless leaders in Africa? We would reduce demand exponentially. After all, look how much those over-empowered liars waste.
South Africa rates as the 25th most populous country in the world according to a WIKI report. We however rate only 32nd in the world by GDP.
That in numbers can be balanced like this: Population of 49,320,500 vs. GDP of $M276,764. That equates to about $M5,611 per person. Now compare that to Saudi Arabia: Population of 25,721,000 vs. GDP of $M469,462. That gives them about $M18,252 per person. BIG DIFFERENCE! They have more money with less people. No wonder they are better off than us.
So my feelings are obvious. Let’s reduce numbers to reduce demand and make for a better average!
10 Comments
Shoowee!! Pretty contentious suggestions there Voted! I tend to agree with you, but wonder how you'd propose we get this population reduction to happen?
VOTE! for it………not sure but you have to start somewere. This is a good a place as any!
Hau!
There aren't enough politians on the planet (even with the handful of decent ones) to make a huge differnence in the numbers. So how we going to move on to the people who have no ambition to contribute to the betterment of society? and who gets to make the decisions as to who stays and who goes? What criteria are we going to base the "no ambition to contribute" on??
I believe in the KISS principle, keep it simple stupid. Ask one question, "What have you done today to contribute to a better life, not only yours but others as well? And, what are you going to do in the future to sustain this better life for all?"
I read an article earlier about the life expectancy of humans to go up drammatically beyond 100. So not only is the human race expanding in sheer numbers, but living longer too… I must point out that this study was particular to the developed world, although with advances in medicine I guess it would be true for most of the planet.
We all wanna live longer and suffer less. Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So The more we do well, the more the lesser suffer.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Greg Pillhofer, The BlaBla Blog. The BlaBla Blog said: RT @BlaBlaBlog Can we solve Global Over Population by selective solutions? http://bit.ly/3Rjqxb [...]
I sort of understand where you are coming from with this Voted!, but can't say that I'd be comfortably supporting the approach.
Who gets to decide if my answer to your "one simple question" is good enough to warrant sticking around? And who decides who the "deciders" will be in the first place? What standards to we apply to "contributing to a better life"?
I reckon the only reasonable way to address things would be to implement a China-style family planning policy, but on a global scale. The Zero Population Growth (ZPG) principle is much debated, and basically suggests that to stabilise human population numbers, we should be limited to having children to replace ourselves, and no more. Read this article.
I know that my approach seems a bit harsh, yet no one has challenged the comparison to the way we treat the antelope? Anyway, some kind of population reduction has to be put in place, realistically it's the only way forward. The rules and regulations would take years to agree to. So the zero growth principle is the easiest way forward.
Oh, and there was a old 70's movie with the same name (ZPG) that sort of predicted the eventual outcome of the scenario that you paint in your post.
The planet gets so stressed by the large numbers of human population, that the governments of the world decided to implement a global policy of no children for an entire generation.
From IMDB:
In the not too distant future, a very smoggy and overpopulated Earth government makes it illegal to have children for a generation. One couple, unsatisfied with their substitute robot baby, breaks the rules and gets in a lot of trouble. (Z.P.G. stands for Zero Population Growth.)
Centeries into the future, the world is overpopulated and polluted and on the verge of collapse. The government's of the world are desperate and so make the painful decision to ban the birth of babies for 30 years. Brainwashing and robot substitutes are used to quell the yearning for children with the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent. Despite this, one couple have a baby.
Start by sterilizing all the HIV and AIDS "patients"