Forumosaurus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Those figures don't take into account that the developing countries will start to consume more, if everyone consumes the same as the average American then the planet can only support 1.5 billion people. 2.5 billion If everyone consumes the same as the average European. For 9 billion to live on the planet we have to accept that many will be constantly staving and living in absolute poverty. Meh, as I said, I'll probably be nearly dead by 2050. I'll be one of those old people who gets full after eating one satsuma, I'm safe. Maybe I should eat all the McDonalds I can before all the meat runs out. Thanks for the advice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 i can tell you which members on this forum who will say yes without even looking Its seams they want to feed the world but don't want to give up what they have to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Meh, as I said, I'll probably be nearly dead by 2050. I'll be one of those old people who gets full after eating one satsuma, I'm safe. Maybe I should eat all the McDonalds I can before all the meat runs out. Thanks for the advice! It’s a reasonable attitude, live for now and stuff everyone else, after all you only have one life, it’s different when you have kids and grand kids you end up thinking about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Its seams they want to feed the world but don't want to give up what they have to do it. the point is that we have excess beyond what anyone born before 1950ish would dream possible so there is no reason to give anything up. mind you, it would probably be good for us to give a bit up if we have plenty shouldn't we be giving it to those who have less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 the point is that we have excess beyond what anyone born before 1950ish would dream possible so there is no reason to give anything up. mind you, it would probably be good for us to give a bit up if we have plenty shouldn't we be giving it to those who have less That seems eminently reasonable to me. I suspect the OP is suggesting that we just let the poor of Africa or wherever ( insert poor, brown or black country here ) starve and do nothing to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I know, it's a disgrace isn't it. Btw, i read an article this week that said we no longer have enough planes to send em all back home now. Send em half way home then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The amount of people will find its own balance if we stop interfering and prolonging the lives of those that can't support themselves. Hard to say but MrSmith on the money. Keep pumping aid into the Countries that cannot sustain their population (famine is natures way of decreasing the population) and all you are doing is making a bad job worse. Feed them, build them up, let them procreate and bingo, the cycle will continue. Difficult to say when you see pictures of starving children on the box, but would they have been better off never been born, I suspect in tens of thousands of cases - yes. Remember 84 and band aid, here we are 27 years on, and what's changed - bugger all. The starving are still starving. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Hard to say but MrSmith on the money. Keep pumping aid into the Countries that cannot sustain their population (famine is natures way of decreasing the population) and all you are doing is making a bad job worse. Feed them, build them up, let them procreate and bingo, the cycle will continue. Difficult to say when you see pictures of starving children on the box, but would they have been better off never been born, I suspect in tens of thousands of cases - yes. Remember 84 and band aid, here we are 27 years on, and what's changed - bugger all. The starving are still starving. Angel. That's due to a lack of political will and intelligent and radical thinking though, not due to a lack of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nubile Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Send em half way home then. In my neighbours case that would be somewhere around Mansfield, i don't think they'd appreciate being relocated there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It’s a reasonable attitude, live for now and stuff everyone else, after all you only have one life, it’s different when you have kids and grand kids you end up thinking about them. No complaints on foreigners coming over here then with what you feel is a reasonable attitude. One may argue that you'd be in favour of more arriving on the basis of "stuff everyone else"? If it helps you could commit suicide to reduce overpopulation. After all you are no more or less important than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.