Over population. What's your solution?
I spoke to a doctor recently; I asked him why cancer and several other diseases were not being cured but instead treated. He looked me in the eyes and said "Because if we cured people then there would be no population control, and we can't have that." He went on to say that the medical industry is very aware of the problems that are created by the foods people eat, and then stated it was also in fact intentional to some degree.
So why is this happening? The answer is simple, we're over populated.
The food demand has vastly exceeded the supply so companies such as the FDA have passed laws, rules and regulations that allow certain products to be "injected" into the foods we eat. This has become allowable because the injected product(s) give longer shelf life and better taste to foods that normally lack nutrients, value and sustainability.
I’ve asked myself the question over and over “where is the solution” and the answer, as I see it, is simple “Educate people on the pro’s and con’s of having children” If people slowed the breeding patter by 1/3 for 3 years we could regain the value of everything we have already lost in the foods we eat.
Is this even possible? Can people set aside their needs and wants of having a child for 3 years? No, this has already proven impossible, and they don’t have to, they just need to thin their litters. Instead of having 2-3 kids they can have one.
I have more to say, but would enjoy hearing everyone’s view on this first.
As always, thanks for your input, and feel free to say what’s on your mind.
So why is this happening? The answer is simple, we're over populated.
The food demand has vastly exceeded the supply so companies such as the FDA have passed laws, rules and regulations that allow certain products to be "injected" into the foods we eat. This has become allowable because the injected product(s) give longer shelf life and better taste to foods that normally lack nutrients, value and sustainability.
I’ve asked myself the question over and over “where is the solution” and the answer, as I see it, is simple “Educate people on the pro’s and con’s of having children” If people slowed the breeding patter by 1/3 for 3 years we could regain the value of everything we have already lost in the foods we eat.
Is this even possible? Can people set aside their needs and wants of having a child for 3 years? No, this has already proven impossible, and they don’t have to, they just need to thin their litters. Instead of having 2-3 kids they can have one.
I have more to say, but would enjoy hearing everyone’s view on this first.
As always, thanks for your input, and feel free to say what’s on your mind.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan V. on -
It's a must watch for everyone on this thread. Context is everything, the trailers don't do it one cent justice. Probably on my top 10 list.
-
Permalink Reply by Burke Bryant on -
lol. Gil you have always made me laugh. You da man!
-
Permalink Reply by hagbard on -
Finnegan,
It's not just that the higher the I.Q. the less the desire or logical imperative to have children. It's also that the higher the I.Q. the more likely they are to realized that properly capitalizing a child in todays world is getting more and more expensive all the time. So even if you are a high I.Q. couple who might like to have 4-6 children, you'd probably rapidly realize that you can't afford more than 2 given what it costs to by into a decent school district or send your kids to private schools (plus college costs, plus various activities needed to position your kids for top colleges, etc, etc, etc).
-
Permalink Reply by Tina on -
Well, to reply to Finnegan Kelly: you say that the people who have the most children are the ones with the lowest IQ, but then again, aren't those also the people who suffer the most from diseases and who have the worst eating habits?
On the one hand, I agree with the two previous standpoints, because people already complain of overpopulation and this "form of overpopulation" is indeed caused by incorrect allocation of resources. I think the world can still take on a couple more million people, because folks often complain very prematurely. For example, where I live (in Holland) they keep saying that the country is full and that's it's crowded and so on, but actually, that's only in the cities and all those thousands of acres used for cattle-ranching... well, there's your space! Add to that the places where "no-one actually wants to live" and you have a whole lot of space... It's a matter of using the land we have to the best of our abilities.
But on the other hand, I agree with Burke Bryant and his doctor. I've wondered many times how we would control the population... Because it seems like a long shot that we'll stop massively reproducing. Seeing as the bulk of the population isn't very intelligent and probably won't agree to "stop having so many children". Usually nature fixes it: diseases like the plague or influenza or just creatures not being able to survive because they haven't adapted in evolution. However, this does not apply to human beings anymore , thanks to modrern medicine. The only other way (and forgive me for being such a pessimist) is by humans themselves: wars, nuclear bombs or manipulation of healthcare, so that peole keep getting ill and dying earlier on, so that they cannot reproduce anymore (which, I believe is basically what Burke's doctor is insinutating).
I think that the way things seem to be going, war is probably the most pausible outcome. Many sociological/anthropological theories claim that war breaks out most often when there is a lack of food and many young males (but I don't know any way to solve the problem of testosterone :P)
-
Permalink Reply by Finnegan Kelley on -
I've thought for a while that homosexuality might be natures way of dealing with the masses of people. It seems like the world gets a little bit gayer every year. And what could be a better solution to too many people having too many kids? So unless modern medicine figures out how to...
Actually, that would be pretty hilarious.
-
Permalink Reply by C. B. Alien Worshipper on -
could also be partially due to increased female hormones in the water food whatever. or not
-
Permalink Reply by jodykwik on -
and while i said i dig raw corn on the cob on your other post, i definitely did NOT mean like this.
-
Permalink Reply by Finnegan Kelley on
-
Hey, well, if you can't eat them...
Latest Activity
oh Im not sure I ever saw you there
Yes I think I taste good.
Ha... then.... why not just get a jump rope? You could have saved a ton of cash.
YOU DO I WAS RAW BALLERINA ON THERE BEFORE THEY CHANGED AND DELETED EVERYBODIES JOURNALS
I bet juggler is GREAT exercise. For the brain, with the hands crossing the body's mid-line is beneficial.
I just ordered a Cellercise, an advanced rebounder, the presenter likened it somewhat to skipping rope.
I favor organic apples on sale anywhere, especially Whole Foods, when they're 99cents/lb (culture shock).
Family Pit
Wikipedia says there are over 7,500 different apple varieties...
http://www.allaboutapples.com/varieties/
Some recent good ones I had are:
Ambrosia, Honeycrisp, Orin...
and the Pink Lady has been one of my favs for some time now.
A lot of em ...
Keep it simple! GINGER! You can make a tea with grated fresh ginger and just pour some hot water over.
Isn't the panda gorgeous? And yes it really is eating an apple.
I can't take credit for the picture though. It comes from Flickr and was taken by Swamibu.
I love apples too! I made a "killer-Raw-Apple-Pie" last week, with different kind of apples in it. It was so good I can't stop thinking about it. The panda-bear in the pic is soooo cute! Did you take the picture yourself?
Community by WLIR:
© 2009 Created by Dhrumil
