Solution to Population and Pollution

[The Geologist]

Also then since population will decrease

Assumption.

Let's see...two parents...one child.  Every seen a family tree? Turn it upside down.  It's not assumption, it's fact.

Is it?  Get enough people crankin' out enough kids, even if it is one at a time..something tells me that the population won't be decreasing.  And we got a whole lotta people 'round here.

[Arbiter]

I think it would be better to turn them into vegetables, and harvest organs from them when needed.

that's not a serious response

How about we harvest YOUR organs after turning YOU into a vegetable *and your family* how would you feel about this proposition?

Who'd want his organs?

[PANZERCATWAGON]

I'll go with

There's nothing we can do to save mankind, it is ****ed.

But what we can do is extend the lifetime of our species by working at it with alternative fuel sources and less reliance on fuel in general. It's never going to happen because of how humans are but it's a scenario.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Is it?  Get enough people crankin' out enough kids, even if it is one at a time..something tells me that the population won't be decreasing.  And we got a whole lotta people 'round here.

Ok.  Let's say that there are four billion sets of parents in the world.  Now, if each set of parents only has one child, there will be four billion children, or two billion couples.  If these couples have one child apiece, the next generation will have one billion couples, then 500 million, then 250 million, then 125 million, then  about 62 million, then about 31, then about 15, then about 8, then 4, then 2, then 1, then 500 thousand, and so on.

Since each generation will produce one and only one set of offspring, we can assume that the generations will be 20 years apart.  About 1 in 6 people will die in those 20 years.

In millions:
Start: 4000
After 20 years: 4000 + 2000 = 6000; 6000 - 1000 = 5000 (remember, only 2000 of those can have children, so 1000 children)
After 40 years: 5000 + 1000 = 6000; 6000 - 1000 = 5000 (only 1000, so 500)
After 60 years: 5000 + 500 = 5500; 5500 - 900 = 4600 (only 500, so 250)
After 80 years: 4600 + 250 = 4850; 4850 - 800 = 4000 (125)
After 100 years: 4000 + 125 = 4125; 4125 - 700 = 3400 (etc.)

Obviously these numbers are approximate.

But you can see that world population only increases by 25% in the first twenty years, remains constant for the next twenty, then declines.  There's irrefutable mathematical proof that restricting couples to one child will eventually decrease the population.

[The Geologist]

Alright, why not work out that math with the current population and tell me if you think it would make a drop in the bucket.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

We have 7 billion people, right? Just add 75% to every figure.  The math is still the same, and the results are still the same: a decrease in population.

It's not as if we need to lose 5 billion people in the next year.  We won't need to do that until every place in the world looks like Tokyo.  And, last I checked, there is a LOT of unpopulated world left (no, I'm not talking about the oceans).  There's plenty of food too.  Why do you think the government subsidizes farmers? Because they're producing TOO MUCH.  We're set for quite a while.

[Bunney]

Why should we care about pollution?

The world will end in 2012 because of an asteroid

their.

Correction. u will die in 2012 if u dont stfu about it hordes of crazy spammers from soldatforums will chaze u...beware

We (we together from soldatforums) could go buy and make some nukes and just bomb teh shiat and we will live in the best earth ever..full of smart asses, spammers, wankers and geekz
that will solve the problem.
I'd F12 it.

[The Geologist]

Meh..still wouldn't work in time to overcome the death rate and make any sort of impact, which is why such a plan just won't work.  This bores me now.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

*Applauds Gamer* Very good.

Although of course, we still have countless other problems that have seemingly no solution, like err nuclear war and the ozone layer but ah they're just the result of hypochondriac polititions.

[Smegma]

Is it?  Get enough people crankin' out enough kids, even if it is one at a time..something tells me that the population won't be decreasing.  And we got a whole lotta people 'round here.

Ok.  Let's say that there are four billion sets of parents in the world.  Now, if each set of parents only has one child, there will be four billion children, or two billion couples.  If these couples have one child apiece, the next generation will have one billion couples, then 500 million, then 250 million, then 125 million, then  about 62 million, then about 31, then about 15, then about 8, then 4, then 2, then 1, then 500 thousand, and so on.

Since each generation will produce one and only one set of offspring, we can assume that the generations will be 20 years apart.  About 1 in 6 people will die in those 20 years.

In millions:
Start: 4000
After 20 years: 4000 + 2000 = 6000; 6000 - 1000 = 5000 (remember, only 2000 of those can have children, so 1000 children)
After 40 years: 5000 + 1000 = 6000; 6000 - 1000 = 5000 (only 1000, so 500)
After 60 years: 5000 + 500 = 5500; 5500 - 900 = 4600 (only 500, so 250)
After 80 years: 4600 + 250 = 4850; 4850 - 800 = 4000 (125)
After 100 years: 4000 + 125 = 4125; 4125 - 700 = 3400 (etc.)

Obviously these numbers are approximate.

But you can see that world population only increases by 25% in the first twenty years, remains constant for the next twenty, then declines.  There's irrefutable mathematical proof that restricting couples to one child will eventually decrease the population.

Assuming Death Rate stays the same, which it wont.

[moomoo]

Why should we care about pollution?

The world will end in 2012 because of an asteroid

their.

Correction. u will die in 2012 if u dont stfu about it hordes of crazy spammers from soldatforums will chaze u...beware

We (we together from soldatforums) could go buy and make some nukes and just bomb teh shiat and we will live in the best earth ever..full of smart asses, spammers, wankers and geekz
that will solve the problem.
I'd F12 it.

George W. Bush is going to go to war in your backyard!

[Dascoo]

I think it would be better to turn them into vegetables, and harvest organs from them when needed.

that's not a serious response

How about we harvest YOUR organs after turning YOU into a vegetable *and your family* how would you feel about this proposition?

I'm not illegal, so I don't give a shit. If I was, I wouldn't fight it. FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY

[LtKillroy]

Yes, let's decrease the people to decrease pollution by implementing this rule. So now the max amout of kids a couple can have is one. Watch as people riot. First off, average families want more than one kid *unhappy*. People who sleep around get a kid, and can't have more *unhappy* Pediatritions, doctors who give abortions, maternity wards, etc. *unhappy*. Maybe in a perfect world, but welcome to earth.

[Didimow]

Dascoo has the right idea!

[Yes]

We have 7 billion people, right? Just add 75% to every figure. The math is still the same, and the results are still the same: a decrease in population.

It's not as if we need to lose 5 billion people in the next year. We won't need to do that until every place in the world looks like Tokyo. And, last I checked, there is a LOT of unpopulated world left (no, I'm not talking about the oceans). There's plenty of food too. Why do you think the government subsidizes farmers? Because they're producing TOO MUCH. We're set for quite a while.

Well yeah we are set for a while but why don't we just start now and we will be set for a longer time. I think we should stop polluting because it causes global warming. Just think if all of Antarctica melts (it is melting) the whole worldmap will have to be remade. I live on the coast in a city. The city i am in will we under water some day if we don't stop global warming.

[karmazon]

We have 7 billion people, right? Just add 75% to every figure. The math is still the same, and the results are still the same: a decrease in population.

It's not as if we need to lose 5 billion people in the next year. We won't need to do that until every place in the world looks like Tokyo. And, last I checked, there is a LOT of unpopulated world left (no, I'm not talking about the oceans). There's plenty of food too. Why do you think the government subsidizes farmers? Because they're producing TOO MUCH. We're set for quite a while.

Well yeah we are set for a while but why don't we just start now and we will be set for a longer time. I think we should stop polluting because it causes global warming. Just think if all of Antarctica melts (it is melting) the whole worldmap will have to be remade. I live on the coast in a city. The city i am in will we under water some day if we don't stop global warming.

Yeah I think we should have a global cooling, it's really hot in California right now.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Pediatritions, doctors who give abortions, maternity wards, etc. *unhappy*.

Dude, business would be booming at abortion clinics.

[a-4-year-old]

Can't we just rely on oil wars to reduce our population for us?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Can't we just rely on oil wars to reduce our population for us?

No, because despite how much people complain, the death toll is very insignificant compared to the world population.

[a-4-year-old]

Can't we just rely on oil wars to reduce our population for us?

No, because despite how much people complain, the death toll is very insignificant compared to the world population.

yeah but we only have one going right now.