- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
The overcrowding of the world is an inevitable societal calamity that, eventually, people will have to deal with. The human population is rapidly approaching levels by which the current natural resources we have will simply be insufficient to sustain everyone. What'll be the result and what solutions are there? There's a lot of viable possibilities, worst case scenarios, solutions, and most of them are not wholly morally sound, feasible, or downright acceptable. There's a lot of criticism and backlash to government-supported birth control to possibly reduce numbers in the future, and tapping into some natural resources that have remained untouched for years is often hindered by geopolitical or cultural differences that may take years, even decades to reconcile. Wholesale genocide of people deemed "unsavory" to standard human ideals is unacceptable and morally repulsive for a myriad of reasons, from the inability to decide on a universal standard of what is "acceptable" to not be slated for slaughter and what isn't "acceptable," not to mention the obvious ethical and moral outrage of treating human life as though you can simply discard it for the sake of theoretical "numbers" or "government programs." However, if things remain unhindered, resources that are growing increasingly more scarce like food and oil will balloon in price, sending thousands, if not millions of people into poverty and possibly leading to social unrest and upheaval, which you could also say is an unacceptable result.
In short, it's a problem and there's no good answer. We'll have to deal with it eventually, and there's a good likelihood many people will not like the result chosen, but to do nothing is to eventually damn everyone when it all comes crumbling down.
... Or were you expecting us to say to go kill yourselves? Because that's also an option.
inb4repostedtoLookismandcalledretardedforpostingahugediatribeinresponsetoa"trollpost"
Last edited:
