Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Decreasing the human population

Lukas8
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 8:09:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

Pay people to not have kids.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 8:19:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:09:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

Pay people to not have kids.

Or penalize people who have kids
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 8:47:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:19:06 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:09:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

Pay people to not have kids.

Or penalize people who have kids

Penalizing the sick also works, as it will reduce population aging.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 10:43:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:47:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:19:06 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:09:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

Pay people to not have kids.

Or penalize people who have kids

Penalizing the sick also works, as it will reduce population aging.

I take your point but really rep productive reaponsibility is pretty trivial when birth control and education is made available.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 11:19:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

1. Financial incentives not to have children.

2. Financial penalties for having children.

3. Education to deter having children.

Obviously you will have an older population on average though. I don't see how without ending healthcare or euthanasia avoiding this is possible.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
TRap
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 4:10:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

make perverted sex the new norm.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 11:30:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

Industrialization, and extreme capitalism. People who are prosperous economically, usally don't reproduce at replacement level.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:42:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 11:19:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

1. Financial incentives not to have children.

2. Financial penalties for having children.

3. Education to deter having children.

Obviously you will have an older population on average though. I don't see how without ending healthcare or euthanasia avoiding this is possible.

Offer 100,000 lump sum to anyone over 21 that euthanizes himself, and lower the reward for every year past 65.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 8:30:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:42:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 11:19:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

1. Financial incentives not to have children.

2. Financial penalties for having children.

3. Education to deter having children.

Obviously you will have an older population on average though. I don't see how without ending healthcare or euthanasia avoiding this is possible.

Offer 100,000 lump sum to anyone over 21 that euthanizes himself, and lower the reward for every year past 65.

Why euthanize fit healthy working age adult? I can see how you could euthanize elderly or very ill people though and pay money to their families as an incentive.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 11:20:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 8:30:56 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:42:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 11:19:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

1. Financial incentives not to have children.

2. Financial penalties for having children.

3. Education to deter having children.

Obviously you will have an older population on average though. I don't see how without ending healthcare or euthanasia avoiding this is possible.

Offer 100,000 lump sum to anyone over 21 that euthanizes himself, and lower the reward for every year past 65.

Why euthanize fit healthy working age adult? I can see how you could euthanize elderly or very ill people though and pay money to their families as an incentive.

why restrict young terminally ill persons that can consent?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 11:55:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

Separate the men and women , maybe a wall or ship 1 lot to a new place. That would decrease the human race. no killing or sterilization, no nothing , but a bloody big wall.

When we separate the men and women.
With a special fancy hi tech mega megs wall . Work will commences on the building of the mega mega mega ladder, us blokes should be able to knock it up in a week or two.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 12:53:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Penalizing those who have children can't work.
That means women , and I'll give ya a tip , some women that have multiple children . Are.
Don't say it don't say it.

Rather nice young ladies.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 1:32:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 11:20:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 8:30:56 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:42:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 11:19:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

1. Financial incentives not to have children.

2. Financial penalties for having children.

3. Education to deter having children.

Obviously you will have an older population on average though. I don't see how without ending healthcare or euthanasia avoiding this is possible.

Offer 100,000 lump sum to anyone over 21 that euthanizes himself, and lower the reward for every year past 65.

Why euthanize fit healthy working age adult? I can see how you could euthanize elderly or very ill people though and pay money to their families as an incentive.

why restrict young terminally ill persons that can consent?

I did not say that. If someone is terminally ill they have a right to end their life in my view as long as they are mentally stable and old enough to know all the details.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 1:53:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 1:32:09 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 11:20:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 8:30:56 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:42:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/1/2016 11:19:23 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

1. Financial incentives not to have children.

2. Financial penalties for having children.

3. Education to deter having children.

Obviously you will have an older population on average though. I don't see how without ending healthcare or euthanasia avoiding this is possible.

Offer 100,000 lump sum to anyone over 21 that euthanizes himself, and lower the reward for every year past 65.

Why euthanize fit healthy working age adult? I can see how you could euthanize elderly or very ill people though and pay money to their families as an incentive.

why restrict young terminally ill persons that can consent?

I did not say that. If someone is terminally ill they have a right to end their life in my view as long as they are mentally stable and old enough to know all the details.

Yah, as it stands now, society urges you to live until the last possible breath, assisted or not; and the costs are friggen ginourmous. There is no incentive to live 1 day less.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:32:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

It's not about stopping reproduction it's about lessening the rate of reproduction
It states ( no matter how long it takes ) wich is needed because we are going to have live with a aging population, for a long time

it may as well read . Can we stop people having sex.

Separate the men and women , no procreation allowed whatsoever for 50 60 years . Live with a aging population , then while still separated implement mandatory procreation meetings , to fine tune how many people you want. Of course it's not happening , but it answer the post .
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:34:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?

A mega wall might have cost more than $50K. Penalization is better.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Reformist
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:44:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

This is what you do.

You force work shy and deformed/mentally ill to be sterilized and be put in work camps. Then you have mandatory abortions for people in 3rd world countries so thry cant reproduce. But then you make it illegal for white women to have abortions

This will increase the white influence over the world which is always good and you decrease the population because 3rd world countries pop out babies as fast as bballcrook21 starts a speech on hangouts

Now of course there are alternatives. You could just mass exterminate the work shy and the 3rd world inhabitants. But that would take too long and you wouldnt be able to get free labor
DDO History Revival Officer
Fuher of the Reich

"I'm not Asian"-Vaarka

"I would rather have a fascist than a socialist in office"- Bball

To be a feminist or to be smart that is the question
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:48:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:34:04 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?

A mega wall might have cost more than $50K. Penalization is better.

You cant penalizee Way way way way to much gray area.
75% of the women would claim they where raped. Maybe 90% .
And you can't combat that.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:49:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:48:28 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:34:04 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?

A mega wall might have cost more than $50K. Penalization is better.

You cant penalizee Way way way way to much gray area.
75% of the women would claim they where raped. Maybe 90% .
And you can't combat that.

Actually, you can. There are medications to prove if they are raped or not.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:51:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:44:24 PM, Reformist wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

This is what you do.

You force work shy and deformed/mentally ill to be sterilized and be put in work camps. Then you have mandatory abortions for people in 3rd world countries so thry cant reproduce. But then you make it illegal for white women to have abortions

This will increase the white influence over the world which is always good and you decrease the population because 3rd world countries pop out babies as fast as bballcrook21 starts a speech on hangouts

Now of course there are alternatives. You could just mass exterminate the work shy and the 3rd world inhabitants. But that would take too long and you wouldnt be able to get free labor

Dumb suggestion. It would start a war..and who would enforce the law? And who told you that white influence is as good as you think? Another colonization, I guess.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:53:34 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:49:35 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:48:28 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:34:04 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?

A mega wall might have cost more than $50K. Penalization is better.

You cant penalizee Way way way way to much gray area.
75% of the women would claim they where raped. Maybe 90% .
And you can't combat that.

Actually, you can. There are medications to prove if they are raped or not.

Is their ok , if you say so
But now it against 90% of women's religion to take it.
CodingSource
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 2:55:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:53:34 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:49:35 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:48:28 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:34:04 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?

A mega wall might have cost more than $50K. Penalization is better.

You cant penalizee Way way way way to much gray area.
75% of the women would claim they where raped. Maybe 90% .
And you can't combat that.

Actually, you can. There are medications to prove if they are raped or not.

Is their ok , if you say so
But now it against 90% of women's religion to take it.

To take what? The law is unstoppable. If the doctors are not allowed by the women to examine their case, then we should know it that these women are not raped.
If computers have no doors or fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

I have a 10-0-0 debate record with an ELO ranking of 2,814. From 610th during my first two-week stay, I am now 326th in the Debates Leaderboard: http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2016 3:04:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/5/2016 2:55:54 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:53:34 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:49:35 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:48:28 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:34:04 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:17:51 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/5/2016 2:02:09 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:45:00 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 3/5/2016 12:27:18 PM, CodingSource wrote:
At 3/1/2016 8:08:11 PM, Lukas8 wrote:
I've got a question. Is there a way to decrease the human population (no matter how much time it takes), without killing or sterilising people and without population ageing?

That's immoral. I think you should just penalize those who have children.

Of course but it answers the post . To stop the ageing population. Built into the mega mega wall , will be like rooms . Where random people meet for their monthly procreation requirements. They can then tune the population to the exact required amount.

That is a very expensive project. I agree about the penalization. This will teach them.

And if one mega wall in one community costs about $2,000 or more, then how expensive it is if we are going to build it for the whole country.....and the whole world! And it will create inequality in society. Think about the consequences.

What the post meant is about decreasing the world's population, not stopping reproduction.

How about 50,000 dollars for sterilization?

A mega wall might have cost more than $50K. Penalization is better.

You cant penalizee Way way way way to much gray area.
75% of the women would claim they where raped. Maybe 90% .
And you can't combat that.

Actually, you can. There are medications to prove if they are raped or not.

Is their ok , if you say so
But now it against 90% of women's religion to take it.

To take what? The law is unstoppable. If the doctors are not allowed by the women to examine their case, then we should know it that these women are not raped.

To take medications , they will say it's against their religion.
Your trying g to do this " morally" and their is no way in hell it can happen.