Doomsday !!! this ought to be popular..

I think nature is trying to take care of over population. Infertility, homosexuality, pendemics, cancers etc. Fortunately or unfortunately - science works against many of natures solutions.

PS: I would LOVE to see weapons eliminated - what ever the reason!

ORIGINAL: MhadDog

This still does not take into account the birth rate in our ouw part of the world...The only way to keep people from breeding would be some sort of forced sterilization,which would again have to be introduced through our food,water,or by some other means,and it would have to be done on a wide scale,and secretly..

Actually, the birth rates in many countries are going down.  I read an articale not too long ago that talked about how some countries were offering incentives to people who have children because birth rates were getting so low.  Apparently some of the reasons people had children no longer apply in many countries now, so less people are having them.  No longer are they extra people to help out on the farm or family business and most people have special plans for how they will be cared for when they are old and no longer need to have children for that reason.  Instead of being an asset, children have become an expence (speaking financally).

ORIGINAL: denise m

I think nature is trying to take care of over population. Infertility, homosexuality, pendemics, cancers etc. Fortunately or unfortunately - science works against many of natures solutions.

PS: I would LOVE to see weapons eliminated - what ever the reason!

Are you sure there is an increased incidence in all those 'solutions' you cited, or they're just more visible?

Paula

First of all, Sally is right. We are sooo funny, the way we think we can or should "save the planet". The planet is fine--it will kick us off when it's had enough of our shenanigans! We should think in terms of saving ourselves!

I agree.  Even if we were autonomous, what makes us so arrogant as to think we'd come up with the "right" solution anyway?  I think I'd just go out and get a few MORE weapons, a few more hostile Aussies, find a porch swing and a nice, tall iced coffee, and wait for the end.  If there is a spirit world, it can't be all that bad...and if there isn't, oblivion might be fine, too.

It's not just about resources, it's about ideologies as well.  We cannot agree to live and let live.  We seem to worry more about what's going on in our neighbor's backyard than in our own.  It's a sticky wicket but it will be our downfall.

And, it's probably inevitable.  No one, in the last 6,000 years, has managed to stop people in the Middle East from hating each other, but we had to give it the ole college try.  Pfft.  Ain't gonna happen.  We can't even get along here without splitting into us versus them about methods of training dogs....
 [sm=director.gif] We are all on our own soapboxes about one thing or another, myself included.  So, why would I think I could convince someone to throw down their weapons, if I can't even get them to pick up a clicker??? 
I think that we should understand that we are not so special.  Dinosaurs are gone.  The British Empire is pretty much gone.  The Titanic is gone. 
Smallpox is gone, but not gone.  Bird flu is not here, but may get here.  An asteroid may be headed this way.
The sky is falling.  Well, it probably IS falling, but I don't sense that we are going to stop it, so might as well buy whatever helmet we can, and, like I said, enjoy the porch swing, sans arrogance.

This question reminds me of something that happened in a college class a few years back. I went to a women's college but we had male students from a nearby college in the class.
 
The question was "If you knew killing five people in this room would save the world from impending destruction could you do it? Could you choose the five people to die? Could you kill them?"

So how did my class answer?  When the papers were read many of the men said they could choose and kill five people if they had to...a few said they didn't know if they could---they would want to know more about the people.
 
Ahhh but what did the women say? A few said they could choose, but the rofessor opened and read an astonishing number of papers that said pretty much the same thing:  
 
Even if I knew it would save the world,  I couldn't choose someone else to die. But I volunteer to be one of the five....if it would save the world.
 
A heckuva group of women and I'm proud to call them sisters.
 
I'm not saying ask for volunteers to die[] I'm saying that there are good people willing to step forward and make sacrifices for the good of others and when the end comes I'm standing with them.

Well China has being doing something for a while in that subject, you can NOT have more than one kid when you get married, period

PS: I would LOVE to see weapons eliminated - what ever the reason!

It's been tried before, unfortunately the only way to enforce a weapons ban is with weapons.  And when weapons are banned people creatively fashion every day implements into them. 

The high technology and rich  countries will not try to inflict casualties on a massive scale on their own people,unless it was a dire emergency.

 
Since the nice people at the state level just send us a brochure explaining that the avian flu will take care of quite a few millions of people just around here (as well as some others hundreds of millions all around the globe) and that the stockpiles of potentially curative medicines will be distributed to the "useful" people first (of whom I am very probably not) perhaps nobody will need to do much to clean the slate a little bit.
 
The cities will go first, all the manufacturing/economic infrastructures will fall apart, food will become scarce... the revenge of the chickens !
 
I'd rather have the sky falling more quickly than from a combination of a wasting disease, riots and starvation but ... I am off to follow their good advice and try to get two weeks worth of food, water, kibble, toilet paper, etc. crammed somewhere in my house. []
 
 

I don't think cities will "go" first. I think that the infrastructure of cities is going to become increasingly valuable.

Well, imagine hundreds of thousands of people, scared to death because everybody around them is falling sick, quarantined in their area, no food available because transports cannot go thru or there are no more transporters, spotted electricity and water services for lack of personnel, etc. .... mmm, riots anybody ?

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

I don't think cities will "go" first. I think that the infrastructure of cities is going to become increasingly valuable.

Oh I think cities would definitely go first. Cities are unsustainable; food and water are transported in by mains and trucks and stuff. Sewage is pumped out.  The minute those systems collapse, cities are in trouble. Look at New Orleans in Katrina. In the boonies you have - to use my location as an example - water (springs), sewer (septic tanks), meat on the hoof (wild and domestic) and room to grow crops. Much more sustainable - hard as heck, but doable. Of course if you get sick you're SOL.

Paula

See now..I knew this would get interesting comments..

 There have been great books over the years about massive untreatable flu epidemics that killed off a majority of people..It is very possible,and would like to think nature would lend a hand in righting the world rather than man.Stephen Kings "The Stand" was a cool book that portrayed the human situation after a massive flu outbreak.

  There are also plenty of stories about nuclear holocaust,with very few remaining people ..there is a world I would hate to live in..Robert McMannons "Swan Song"was really good.

  I do not agree with the methods I think some leaders would have to go to make the world liveable .It wouldn't be done fior the good of humanity,but for greed.

 There would be massive chaos if population reduction was done too quickly...sure would be interesting times to live in..I do believe that the government would use some type of biological weapon to do the work needed.How do we know it hasn't happened allready?And actually it has in the past on small scales.

Depends on what kind of disaster you face, Paula.

I agree that an instantaneous natural catastrophe leaves cities vulnerable.

But that's not what's gonna happen, IMO.

Cities are much more sustainable when it comes to actually dealing with huge quantities of people... and the planet is fine--we are the ones with the problem.

Rather than one large disaster, it is more likely that our infrastructure (transportation, etc.) is going to become much more expensive and huge volumes of people will be migrating from coastal areas, dustbowls, etc. Cities (megacities) are going to be the only way to handle that kind of mass migration and get goods, medical care, etc. to people.

There's a bunch of podcasts for sale on itunes about the future by a group called The Long Now Foundation--interesting stuff about what the next 100 years looks like...

As a former trucker, I can tell you that I once donated my time free to bring hay to starving cattle during a drought, but I'd be a masochist to slap gears toward the bird flu infested cities.  I'd probably park and wait it out.  I already have the six weeks worth of canned food, dog food and BF's medications.  Not a boy scout, but a prudent healthy respect for the selfishness of the human race.  I think that Ed is right.  A certain percentage of people will either find a way to keep weapons, or fashion a "shiv" at home.

Even if I knew it would save the world,  I couldn't choose someone else to die. But I volunteer to be one of the five....if it would save the world.

Admirable, perhaps, but maybe more a response to the conditioned selflessness that has kept women under the glass ceiling for so long.  I seem to remember a book one time that said nice girls don't get the corner office.  In your scenario, they wouldn't even get home from the office.  Not saying that wasn't a fine response, but after all, we are talking hypothetical here.  IMO, if the scenario were real, they'd be pissing all over themselves trying to impress the guys who would do the choosing so that they would be the ones chosen to live.  The girl with best cleavage and tightest butt wins and gets the chance to start the new world. [] 

Am I a cynic?   Off to read my handbook on edible landscaping now...

ORIGINAL: espencer

Well China has being doing something for a while in that subject, you can NOT have more than one kid when you get married, period

It's a pretty crappy law too because there's a birthrate of around 65-75% males there now.  Kind of suspicious if you ask me. 

Doomsday, will probably come, IMO from an encounter with an asteroid or comet.

Check the Mayan or Aztec calendar for the date.