The world is overpopulated and it can not go on like this. Maybe a disease that will kill 70-95% of the population is a good solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsAracLBCxI&hd=1
I never even needed this youtube video before I realised how truly solvable the problem was. Watching the recent Dredd movie can also help you understand this concept ( megacities ).

Edited 5/21/2014 23:32:29

Why Overpopulation is a problem is because Humans consume too many resources. More water, more land, more Oil.

Efficient farming does require large quantities of oil, steel and synthetic fertilizers and all of these resources are limited (/also their prices are constantly rising), and obviously there are alternatives but they are far less efficient even with the constantly rising prices, before we had oil we used animals, before we had synthetic fertilizer we used organic fertilizers, and before we had steel we used wood, and yes 500 years ago when the population was a mere half billion and more then 95% of them were farmers we could manage with those tools, but we live in a different world.

another resource that is very limited is farmland, while its true that producing basic crops wouldn't require that much land, but the thing is people aren't happy with just eating bread they want meat and all kinds of fruits, and thats why a single person needs 10000 square meters of fertile land (/a year), and since we already turned most of our forests, wetlands, swamps into farmlands there isn't much fertile land left to sustain our ever growing population.

Seems the fool who made this Video did not "Think About It" . The Fish populations are dwindling due to overfishing, Jobs are harder to find because too many people & not enough Jobs.

Overpopulation is real.

The only intelligent way to control population is to allow people to have as many children as they want, but then require those children to compete for available space upon the month of their 21st birthday. They would have to compete with their same age group. They would have to compete against nature, allowing nature to perform its job of natural selection. Each of them must have electronic trackers on them reporting location and vital statistics. Place them in a jungle location naked and unarmed and allow nature to kill off the slow runners, crippled and sick. When the number alive gets low enough to result in a controlled population, we pull out the winners and have Earth's population under permanent control and allow people to have as many children as they please. This is such a good approach, because it provides a large workforce of young workers before they enter the natural selection process and we need this workforce. Also a large population of children is important if we face some kind of natural disaster or ET war.

When you're dealing with population control, it's a lessor of evil choice. So you need to develop an approach that best serves the people. Using nature to do its natural job, eliminates most of the corruption involved in deciding who lives and who dies. You might think it's ethical simply to reduce the number of babies born. However, you are depriving so many of not being able to experience human life at all. In my example, you go ahead and have the children who get to enjoy the best part of the human experience, life as a child and young adult human. 

assuming that you are causing no harm by limiting the number of children you have. I propose that you cause greater harm not having a child, than having the child and letting the child enjoy 20 years of the best years of human life, before facing natural selection by the jungle. They would not be fighting each other, they would simply be pitting themselves against nature individually. Even if the average couple had four children, this would only result in a 50% culling of the herd at natural selection. So your odds of survival would 50/50 and man has faced far worse odds than that from time to time.
If you believe in a Creator God, then you must also believe that an abundance of life is important. The purpose of life is beyond your comprehension, without some enlightened person telling you that purpose. Unfortunately, their are so many liars among you that provides little help, but it seems obvious that there is a purpose to life and most can take solace in that.
In a time and a nation that commits so many murders of babies, simply because they are in a fetal condition, ethics is hardly a condition that a Doctor should put forth.

This is simply about controlling and possibly reducing population, by a natural mechanism that is incorruptible and that is nature. Still corruption is likely to get itself involved because mankind is barbaric, primitive, corrupt, cheaters; with the belief that the only thing that matters is winning.
You are living under the rich, because they won and they have cheated, killed, stolen, bribed the government, etc. in order to get were they are and stay there.

Edited 5/22/2014 00:16:40

overpopulation is real indeed, but

a disease that will kill 70-95% of the population

wouldnt change anything. Although this doesnt belong to the topic at all, there is a good quote by Karl Popper, unfortunately I cant remember the exact sentence, but the content has been: evolution always progresses and never falls back.

"China is actually the strongest country in terms of military."

Lol. Dream on. They might have more soldiers than the US, but their military doesn't come close in other measurements.

China's defense budget is 126 billion USD, the US's is 612.5 billion USD.

There is absolutely no comparison.

China might have a chance against Russia, but they'd be outclassed in that war even.


The US would walk all over China in a war, and that'd be without having to resort to nuclear firepower, which if entered into the equation would give the US the ability to eliminate all life in China nigh-instantly with nuclear bombs.

Woop te do, go America! You can take over the rest of the world. I'm glad I'm British, ahh a cup of tea. Spithing.

Apollo, don't get too proud, all our government does is suck up to America instead of voicing real people's opinions.

Edited 5/23/2014 02:45:15

I'm not particularly pro-American. I just think that someone arguing that China's military trumps the US's is completely and utterly silly.

I'm Chinese, and I agree that our military power is behind the US. However the three superpowers in the world (china , rus, US) are all powerful enough that a full scale war between them will be so devastating to both sides it (hopefully) wont happen anytime in the near future.

I'm not proud, I'm happy. I don't care if we suck up to America. But why do we need to, it's not like we need protection. We are allied an that's it, so should the rest of the world. They sulked because we didnt join them in a war (syria?), then they called France their biggest ally.
China, Russia, USA War is ridiculous they're three of the most powerful countries and well developed, what do they have to prove.

another resource that is very limited is farmland, while its true that producing basic crops wouldn't require that much land, but the thing is people aren't happy with just eating bread they want meat and all kinds of fruits, and thats why a single person needs 10000 square meters of fertile land (/a year), and since we already turned most of our forests, wetlands, swamps into farmlands there isn't much fertile land left to sustain our ever growing population.

True, but on the other hand, we are massively wasting the food we have now. With the food we produce these days the whole earth can be fed. Eventhough it is true that farmland is getting limited, it doesn`t have to mean that humanity will get foodproblems. (Besides that, Africa is currently not optimally used and could grow much more food than their own population needs, but they don`t have the money nor knowledge to do that)

The US would walk all over China in a war, and that'd be without having to resort to nuclear firepower

Would the US win? Yes, they probably would (if Russia doesn`t interfere). Will they walk over China in a war? No, they wouldn`t. It would be a massive and long war in which both parties will suffer horribily.

China, Russia, USA War is ridiculous they're three of the most powerful countries and well developed, what do they have to prove.

They don`t have to prove anything, but feel like they have to prove that they won`t back down. Plus they are three of the most powerfull countries, or better said, the three most powerfull countries. What do they have to proof? That they are #1, and not #2 or #3.

Would the US win? Yes, they probably would (if Russia doesn`t interfere). Will they walk over China in a war? No, they wouldn`t. It would be a massive and long war in which both parties will suffer horribily.

Why would Russia need to join in? On an open battlefield, China would be eliminated yes, but assuming the Americans were the aggressors, I see no feasible way the Americans could win without killing most of the billion people in the country. Imagine another Vietnam in a country a hundred (more I'd guess) times bigger. In China, the USA would flop in a situation of war.

Why would Russia need to join in?

Because if the USA invade China, Russia is not going to watch and do nothing.

yeah yeah, the US is particularly famous for its military victories ^^

Back to back World War champs!!!!

Overpopulation is rather simple to solve. If it really WAS breathing down our necks, the governments of the world could come to a consensus of a nice patch of land to settle the entire populaces of Earth while the rest is used for agriculture, industry and plundered for its resources. Sure, overpopulation is a problem of the far future and it is ignorant to forget about it, and sure natural selection is a decent solution. But why not believe that in at least one thousand years humanity will have the capability to colonize Mars , Titan , or Europa? Overpopulation is similar to global warming. It is supported by blurry theories when it has actual causes and real solutions.

As for Russia-China-USA , I think that would be a rather unlikely war. Considering Russia would most likely have to deal with the EU and such , it'd most likely be war between China and America over the debt. I still have high hopes that these wars can be averted and will never happen or have to happen, but the idea of them is possible.

I see this has moved over to an over population conversation, but as an American I can say that we (the U.S.) could not beat China in a war.

1)Even if Russia ignores a Sino-American war, China would still have other allies thanks to World-wide anti-Americanism
2)China would likely fight a defensive war, which means the 'how are they going to move all of their troops' argument is invalid.
3) China has superior numbers. Make that massively superior numbers. You can't invade a nation with that much less soldiers than the defender and expect to win.
4)China does have some good weaponry. (anybody hear about that missile that can destroy super carriers?) On top of that they make our weapons, who is going to make our weapons? This is not the 1940s. America doesn't make its own stuff anymore, China does. That includes firearms.
5) Being likely that the U.S. would declare first, China has superior will and morale. That's imporant. Defending their proud nation from haughty American 'rapist war criminals' would be the first priority for ever man, woman and child in China. Sounds like Operation Barbarossa all over again.
6) If we take a look at allies who does the U.S. have? Britain, France, maybe Europe? Britain and France (despite what their citizens believe) aren't what they used to be.
7) This is a BIG if, but if China could find ways to disarm US technology, they have won altogether.

America is not what it used to be. We can't even handle a few radical jihadists. How could we defeat a nation with iron will WITHOUT killing civilians. It's impossible, but we would attempt it.

Edited 5/24/2014 17:22:07

Who wins a war between China and the USA would depend on who's trying to invade who. If the USA is trying to invade China, then China wins. If China is trying to invade the USA, then the USA wins.

Considering Russia would most likely have to deal with the EU and such

Europe won`t stand a chance against Russia without US helping.

China does have some good weaponry. (anybody hear about that missile that can destroy super carriers?) On top of that they make our weapons, who is going to make our weapons? This is not the 1940s. America doesn't make its own stuff anymore, China does. That includes firearms.

If a war like that one starts, USA will start to produce their own weapons again. Don`t worry about that.

This is a BIG if, but if China could find ways to disarm US technology, they have won altogether.

This is also the other way around. If the USA gets power down in China, it will be much and much easier to win the war.

Besides all this. While a USA-Russia war is not unthinkable, a USA-China war seems very unlikely at this point. Desides that China doesn`t cause any big troubles and doesn`t seem to be as "anti-american" as Russia (They might be, but they don`t show it). They also still need Europe and USA, Else its economy isn`t worth anything. They make a lot of money from their fabrics and such, but most of those things do in the end go to the western world.

Edited 5/24/2014 17:31:28