Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

should U.S. start controlling population growth?

Couldn't we just revoke breeding rights for really ugly people?? It would be practical and good for aesthetic purposes.
 
The Nature Boy said:
I think at age 75 people should be put to sleep.

This is fucking hilarious. Reminds me of an episode way back in the day from 'Dinosaurs.'

Anybody remember that episode... or the fucking show for that matter?
--
 
The Nature Boy said:


you ever see the movie Soylent Green?

no :(

i wanna though. however i hope me knoing soyent green is people doesnt ruin it :)
 
danielson said:
western countries use up more of the worlds resources anyway, so even if the third world countries have lots of people, most of them die at a young age


ahh.. but you're wrong.. these third world countries are growing.. they are making advancements in medicinal, socioeconomical, scientific, and every other aspect/forum where advancement is possible... and what are they striving for in their growth? a standard of living exactly like the u.s. why do you think people come to the u.s.?? for our standard of living. now.. if these developing countries with their growing populations reach the standard of living that the u.s. is at right now.. what do you think that will do to the carrying capacity of the entire world? how soon will the non-renewable resources (fuel, soils, minerals, ores) of our planet hold out??
 
The Nature Boy said:
what we need to do is have a limit on how long people can live. I think at age 75 people should be put to sleep. Their productivity is low, and their medical costs are high. Science is prolonging life, but is that really living? Is having Alzhimers or being stuck in a nursing home really being alive? no.


nature boy has a point here.. why should unproductive members of society, especially those who are not really even alive, be allowed to drain more resources?

but you also have to realize that the age that people will have to reach before they come to a point where their lives are no longer productive will be increasing with the increase in scientific and medical advancements.. so in turn.. we will have to begin to slow the growth of the population that much more..
 
Crazier said:


This is fucking hilarious. Reminds me of an episode way back in the day from 'Dinosaurs.'

Anybody remember that episode... or the fucking show for that matter?
--

WHy do I remember this?? Didn't they throw old people off a cliff once they hit a certain age??
 
decem said:



ahh.. but you're wrong.. these third world countries are growing.. they are making advancements in medicinal, socioeconomical, scientific, and every other aspect/forum where advancement is possible... and what are they striving for in their growth? a standard of living exactly like the u.s. why do you think people come to the u.s.?? for our standard of living. now.. if these developing countries with their growing populations reach the standard of living that the u.s. is at right now.. what do you think that will do to the carrying capacity of the entire world? how soon will the non-renewable resources (fuel, soils, minerals, ores) of our planet hold out??

i dont deny their levels of industrialisation are increasing rapidly, india and china especially are shifting to fossil fuels (well until clinton *cough* sold/gave nuclear technology away)

but the fact still remains that the US alone consumes 25% (reported) of the worlds resources. thats just one country....add in europe, it goes up further.....we have the greater responsibilty to pour $$ into research and development of new technologies or these smaller countries will just not listen to us when we say 'dont give every china man a fridge'

we're not putting as much in financially as we could. and the oil companies have only 'just' switched to doing this (aside from exxon!)
 
Top Bottom