ANSWERS: 21
  • lock n load
  • Ethically impossible. I would have an army do it for me... nukes would run the environment... lol
  • send out a survey offering people a choice of a life on Mars.
  • The New Space Exploration program just opened up and started. "Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the many great starships. Its fifty-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no person has gone before."
  • Put all the females in Europe/Asia and all the Males in the Americas
  • I would do it in the name of my new God. Ethically, I would offer people a choice to convert or die. The ethics of my God make me correct and right and holy, so there would ultimately be no fault in my actions and the actions of my religion. =)
  • make men call the day after the first date.
  • Give a huge tax rebate/credit for all single people with 0 dependents - this could cause other problems in the long run
  • Easy, under the disguise of a "free small pox vaccine program" We purposely taint the vaccines with the HIV virus. Then, in a government van, go into neighborhoods and inject a seclect population with the "Free small pox vaccine". Heck, we can even donate the Red Cross who are in those third world countries with the tainted small pox vaccines. OH WAIT... THIS WAS DONE A WHILE BACK.. Gays and blacks were the target group. And what do you have now? A populations of gays and blacks infected with the virus. Same thing happened in Africa. Where we gave the population of Africans free small pox shots... After all, Aids is a US patent. Patent number is 5676977 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4647773.html THE MORE YOU KNOW...
  • Open up a new space relocation program to ship people off Earth
  • Ever see Logan's Run?
  • I would make everyone except a couple of thousand infertile somehow, maybe invent an injection that does the job easier. But still keep those couple of thousand... probably more, so that if we ever need to increase the population again they'll be some people young enough to do so still around.
  • Birth control. We all have to die sometime, ceasing births allow the population to die out without adding to it.
  • First, offer euthanasia to anyone that wanted it, that was over the age of consent. Second, sterilize all women on welfare that have more than 2 children. Third, sterilize all men that have children they do not support. Fourth, sterilize any woman that has had two abortions where the child's life or her life was not in danger, she was not raped, and the child would not be horribly handicapped (harlequin baby for example). And last, stop sending aid to other countries, when you cannot feed your own. Let them care for themselves until you have no homeless, no starving, no poverty. Then you can help others.
  • I suppose you would be considerate of what humans are used to and do it the old fashion way.. WAR and DISEASE.
  • i love this concept. government mandated sterilization, a kid cap, and euthanasia for sure. keysha's answer = win!
  • I'd offer economic incentives to have 2 kids or fewer, and disincentives to having 3 or more kids. The more you have, the steeper disincentive. Maybe a 1%/child/year tax Over a long period of time, the population would decrease.
  • there is no perfect answer or way to answer the question posed. Bibilically speaking, God gave man the command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth so who are we as man to try to do something against what the great Creator of all things has ordained? The answer is simple, we cannot so i cant answer the above question, and in doing so would be admitting to doing genocide against people that were created by God, no matter how so called legal the so called government claims it would be. Instead of asking the above question, why not ask " how can we as a human race put our differences aside and come together no matter what the circumstances may be"?
  • If money is no object, I would simply offer every child- bearing-age person in the world a huge bonus for every year they went without having any children.
  • First, universal birth control. If only people who wanted babies had babies, then there would be many many fewer babies, Octomom notwithstanding. Second, a requirement that anyone having a child raise the money for that child's upbringing ahead of time, and place it in escrow for the sole purpose of child support. If any is left when the child reaches the age of majority, the parent can have the balance. Third, a living wage for *everyone* would be required to give any responsible family the possibility of raising enough to have a child. Anything short of this would lead to abuses and conflicts, and would therefore be unethical.
  • 1) Do do this without a valid reason would be what a kind of genocide. Some forms of genocide could be more acceptable than others, though. One possibility would be the creation of supplementary resources outside the world, on other planets. However, this could take more than 50 years. Another possibility is birth control. The obvious idea is to facilitate birth control in places where it is difficult to get. Notice, however, that this solution is considered unethical by the Catholic Church. Further applications of birth control would be dictatorial (as was made in China with the one kind policy). The ethical justification is to place collective good before individual good. Further, extreme unethical possibilities would be to let people die of hunger, diseases or crime, for instance by suppressing health insurance, welfare, etc. 2) "Globalism has created an entirely new standard in the world today. There are no longer national laws that can touch the multinationals. The War on terror was phony from day one: it was a declaration of war by multinational interests upon all nations, all religions and all forms of order and law around the world. The real organizational chart depicts our new owners, and is headed by the major multinational corporations. Below them are the political parties and the politicians that we used to see as powerful. Beneath that are the military and intelligence forces, along with their supporting cast and all of this is all held together by the media that reports only what the owners of media want you to know. Media also just happens to be made up of subsidiaries, to those same mega-corporations that are now running the whole show. Politicians and political parties are nothing but hollow fronts for international theft and greed, as never before. Yes, there is terrorism today, but it is not by those whom the government says we are at war with. The "terror" is alive and well but it is hiding behind the corporate logos of prominent multinational corporations. Their mission has become the theft, and ultimately the privatization of everything that is part of what we think of, as life on this planet. These insider outlaws, want to own all the components of everyday life. It begins with the water, the air and all the earth-and then goes deeper-seeking to patent the entire matrix of human life, as well as any plant or living organism that could produce a profit. In this, they have over the last sixty years, coerced the lawmakers and the courts, into becoming their silent partners in this would-be theft of all that lives." "There are many telltale signs of late, that the above is so. The desire to reduce the world's population by some four billion people becomes more understandable, if that number is seen as the poorest of the poor; then they are by definition of no use whatever to profit making entities." Source and further information: http://www.rense.com/general56/outlaws.htm 3) "The thought that rapid population growth could increase conflict is hardly new, and certainly Thomas Malthus accepted this relationship in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population. As with so many efforts to interpret human behavior, however, the link between resource depletion and conflict has been obscured by extreme arguments. As Shridath Ramphal and Steven Sinding, then of the UN commission on Global Governance and the Rockefeller Foundation, write, “there has been considerably more heat than light in the international dialogue” and efforts have been made that “suit a political, as opposed to a scientific interest.” Those looking at the same landscape of facts but through different lenses end up sparring instead of seeking synthesis. Nancy Peluso and Michael Watts, colleagues of ours at Berkeley, castigate writers such as Robert Kaplan, author of The Coming Anarchy: How Scarcity, Crime, Overpopulation, and Disease Are Rapidly Destroying the Social Fabric of Our Planet, for making too direct a link between resource scarcity and conflict. They point out, citing Karl Marx (who did in fact get a few things right), that economic patterns also help determine who controls and who has access to resources. No doubt some conflicts could be avoided by a more equitable distribution of resources; there is nothing contradictory in arguing for greater social and economic equality while also recognizing that high birth rates can overwhelm the ability of a finite region to sustain its human population regardless of such equality." Source and further information: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/sex-and-war-exc.html 4) "Suppose the world population was too high - you can even name your own reason(s). It could be the fact that you know or believe the world cannot sustain human life given current and future population figures, or perhaps life on earth with such population figures would not be anything as enjoyable as it would be with fewer people on the planet. Or provide your own theory as to why the earth's human population needs to be reduced. How would you go about reducing the Earth's human population? Give yourself whatever human powers are possible - which is pretty limitless given mankind's ability with "teamwork". Would you opt for the most "ethical" or "painless" population reduction, or would you satisfy a more sadistical whim while you're at it? Starvation, disease, war...the possibilities are limited only by the human imagination and current technological abilities. Political or legal barriers may hinder, but maybe you think your plan will best circumvent such obstacles. So, if reducing the population were essential to survival and/or the insurance of a sustainable quality of life standard as you understood it, what method would you implement, or prefer to see implemented, in order to achieve your goal? You can justify the means by the ends all you wish." Source and further information: http://www.techimo.com/forum/debateimo-politics-religion-controversy/207319-how-would-you-reduce-worlds-population.html Further information: - "Overpopulation - Mitigation measures": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Mitigation_measures - "Let's Turn The Population Trend": http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2009/02/lets_turn_the_population_trend.php - "Treading on a taboo": http://www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/treading_on_a_taboo.htm

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy