Mother earth is facing a problem of over weight, she has limited space, but yet the number of human on earth is increasing greatly. This may cause more land being used, more natural resources being exploited, thus, trees will be cut down for land purpose and oil all these will be exploited more. Next, global warming occur. Other than that, with higher demand and less resources, price of goods will jack up and thus cause people who are poor more hard. Also the more the people, the more intence the competition of survival will be such as finding jobs, as they are more and more people.

However, everyday thousands and thousands of death occur, death caused by war, death caused by decease, natural disaster, accidents and so on. Just wondering, can this be said a good thing for mother earth? No offence, Im also very sad and pity
for the unfortunate.
Please please do reply and pass any comment!!
Comment please, thank you

Ya the human society is notorious for wasting what we have and lusting after what we don't.

I understand some reasons for moving, but when you want a big house for two people, I don't understand that so much.

Also, it'd be nice to see older homes that are dilapidated be fixed up so that the same land is used and a lot of newer land is left as is.

the possiblity of a renovation of a new house depends on the area and size of family. some areas just don't have old homes, and, like bella said, her family is huge, and in her area, that size of a older home is impossible 2 find. i am just saying that those who haqve the opportunity don't.

agreed, when i moved it was because my mother got married and we didnt have enough room in our house for his two sons, but we made sure we sold the house first before building a new one. (its not on topic AT ALL but i think its funny: we sold our house to a retired space monkey trainer! lol)

I always wonder the same thing. there is a new subdision that is going up by my house, but the population hasn't increased. A lot of times, the cost to fix up a older big house is less than what it costs to build a whole new one. Why don't we just fix up the old beauties rather than destory beautiful land to make way for the new houses we don't need?

quote:

If we just got our death rates to equal (at least) our birth rates, we would be okay.

The best way may actually be to-- temporarily-- create older societies in all the prominent societies in the world: that is, bribe people to not have children so that our society ages and the death rate is temporarily greater than the birth rate.

Another thing that bothers me that is kind of on topic is how people are building all these new houses, when a lot of older ones cannot be sold. Why do we need new houses all the time? Why can't we fill the old ones in first?

The real problem is not keeping up with our population food wise, but keeping us within our natural boundries.
We should only reproduce to a certain extent, and since we have no natural predators, we have far exceded our limits. We are killing the world around us to fit nore of us, most of those "us"es unintentional.
Abortion should be an option, no matter what. But we should also promote safe sex and make it even more affordable, so that all these poorer people who have too many kids can slow down their "production rate".
There is nothing wrong with gays. In fact, one of the nicest and smartest people I ever met is gay, and he is very happy with his partner. It IS natural to him being gay; it is something that just happened.
Again, killing other things to make way for us is WRONG. Just because something is less intelligent than us doesn't mean we should kill it. What if we still killed all the babies born ugly or with deformitiews, mental or otherwise? Just to make way for some other "good" kid? Man kind has done things like kill babies because of gender, kill people because of race, and, now, destory our natural world because it's in the way. If we just got our death rates to equal (at least) our birth rates, we would be okay. I am not promoting death. I'm just saying that all this new life should not be here when we have too many people.

Abortion is never right, especially not as a population control. Homosexuality is not natural, so I don't know why it would be a population control.

Death is not supposed to happen young, therefore, that is also not a population control. Besides, we are supposed to have children to replace ourselves, and to populate the earth.

The big problem is food sourcing and agriculture. We need to spread the population created when agriculture was started, and we need to spread food out better than we are.

Hate to say it, but abortion is a great way to control the population. In the end, as horrible as some people think it is, it may be needed to keep control. That is the only reason that I support abortion.

I hesitate to call it that, but if we were looking at it emotionlessly, yes, it is a great population control. Abortion as well. Both are cold reasons when applied to this topic, (but gods know I support abortion because of this reason).

If mass death/early death could be considered a good thing for population control for the earth, what about homosexuality? Could that be considered a good-- or better-- population control?

Let's get back on topic and move this conversation to PMs, please.

HI Ikki14Reed! I don't mean to be mean or anything, because I'm not a mean person so please don't take this to offense. I'm friends with artemisgirl and I understand all of your points of debate. You really are pretty smart but you can be passionate with out being so caustic.

THANKS!!!!!!

I quote you because I'm debating you and want you to know what points I'm debating to. Nothing more than that. I'm not picking on you; just arguing a point. Your points are valid, but so are others, and the best way to figure the best things out is to discuss it.

And if you don't like the High School Comment, that's only mentioned because I didn't want people to think that I had spent a ton of time researching things when I had just remembered it all from about two classes I took in High School.

And by the way, if I backed off and if anyone backed off anytime they thought that they could debate/argue/discuss points with you, then how would you learn to hold your own?

What is with you and quoting us? Do you just pick on younger kids in yor spare time. I happen to think that I made a good point, I never said that it was easy, and I would appreciate it if you backed off a bit. By the way, don't quote my friends either.
for u, ikki reed

quote:

I have to admit Ikki14Reed you've done your research

I've actually just been through high school.

I have to admit Ikki14Reed you've done your research

props

By stopping people from having kids-- you aren't going to stop people from having sex. Parents and the government have been trying for centuries, but to know avail-- you get into the sticky ethical mess of "Who can have kids and why?" and subsequently, start treading the road to eugenics, which is a science in which Hitler tried to learn a LOT about and which has been debated about for awhile. Do you not let criminals breed because they are such a menace to society? But what about those criminals whose children are outstanding citizens? And what of rapes resulting in pregnancy? Do you demand those women get abortions because you need to decrease populations and why not kill two birds with one stone-- get rid of a potential criminal while saving the planet by letting fewer people enter it?

What about sterilization? Then people can have all the sex they want without pregnancy (there is a slight chance-- though minimal-- that a pregnancy could result, but lets, for the sake of argument, assume that sterilization is perfect in the sense of completely eradicating all chance of pregnancy in those who have been sterilized), but who do you sterilize? Not that many people will do so willingly, so who do you do? Only "normal" people, those without any defects? It is a "survival of the fittest" world after all. But who decides what is normal and what is not, and how is it decided? And what if it's decided that all Africans cannot have children or all those of Jewish heritage, or all Europeans? Can people ethically say that and have it be done?

Then there's also the idea of abortion-- When does life start and who can determine who can end it when? That also gives to the idea of murder-- if we want to minimize those on earth, why not just let murder be legal? Then we wouldn't have to deal as much with trying to stop people from having sex, and if we created forced sterilization of, say, every fourth woman born, then Mother Earth's burden would be greatly reduced.

Oh, and an issue of having safe sex: The pill gives the body an excess of hormones which, when passed through our bodies and into other ecosystems have been known to wreck havoc on those ecosystems. So do we do anything about that? Or do we promote that as an alternate to reducing our population while ruining other species?

quote:

Ok Ikki14Reed I don't think you understood her. You said (quote)"Sorry hun but it ain't that easy"(end quote) and in return she told you that IF everything was easy Hitler would haven taken over, not that it WAS easy. Don't lash out if you didn't know what was being said. Think before you speak

1. I wasn't lashing out and I did think about what I was saying.
2. I still hold by what I said, though. Nothing's easy, and if it were, someone would have taken over long before Hitler.
3. If I did mistake out of context a bit, it's because it was 3 am and it's been an emotionally strenuous week.