Poll of the Day > Can we offload people to Antarctica when we hit 11 billion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like if were overpopulated at 11+ billion and Antarcticas ice has largely melted away, could we not just look to develop Antarctica into somewhere habitable?

Or is it like if Antarctica becomes habitable we got bigger problems lol

---

11 billion isn't even necessarily all that overpopulated, when you consider how much empty space currently exists and how sci-fi has been predicting hive-like megastructures and arcologies for years.
---

Should just stop people having so many children, seeing mothers walking around with 4+ children is disgusting.

Or we could treat each other better.

---

313800 posted...

Should just stop people having so many children, seeing mothers walking around with 4+ children is disgusting.

Actually, people are already having less children. Sure, some people have more than they should, but thats not the norm. For example, I think it was the UK where families were having only like 1 kids for most families these days. Which means they arent even having enough to kids to replace themselves. And even in the US, I hear many people not having kids...
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Or we could treat each other better.

Shut up

---

313800 posted...

Should just stop people having so many children, seeing mothers walking around with 4+ children is disgusting.

Can't tell religious people what to do, apparently.

---

No, the pollution people create will make it melt faster.

---

EvilMegas posted...

No, the pollution people create will make it melt faster.

Yeah its not a massive ice cube though, theres land under it. We could just redevelop it once it melts

---

Nope. Well just keep adding people to the little land we have left, while the over-pop deniers continue to say, while short of breath, wedged between three people Show me the proof!

---

As ideal as a legal maximum for the number of children a woman is allowed to have would be, that'd be extremely unrealistic to implement in a society like America. Additionally, it's wrong in a moral/biological sense when you consider that the whole point of our existence (and any other creature's existence) is to procreate.

As already said, people are definitely having less children than before. It's just the extremely religious nutjobs that think they're doing God's work by having as many kids as possible.

The issue isn't space, we got plenty of that. What we're lacking is places people want to live.

I could live in a highrise building in downtown Toronto, and be stacked 30 families high... Or I could live in the middle of nowhere Newfoundland on an acreage that cost a fraction of the price of that tiny condo.

One of those cities has more opportunities than the other, and prices reflect that. Space isn't the issue, opportunities are.

---

313800 posted...

Should just stop people having so many children, seeing mothers walking around with 4+ children is disgusting.

Not sure if you're trolling. But on the off-chance you're serious, you can shove it. My family is not disgusting.

I am the proud oldest brother of 5 siblings. We've made countless wonderful memories together, and love each other very much.

That may not matter to you. But I don't care. The love that my family shares is worth more that your cold misanthropy. Or any misguided sense of altruism. People can support things like population control only until that magnifying glass is focused upon them. Then literally everyone drops the act. I've seen it time, and time again.

"But JC," you say, "if your other siblings weren't born, you wouldn't know the difference." OK, that may be possible. But fact is...they were. And I do. And even with all the struggles we've faced in the past, and will come to face in the future...I wouldn't trade in my family for anything else in the entire friggen world! So, your hypothetical hindsight is irrelevant to me.

Maybe the world has issues with population. But the solution is not and will never be to forcefully attack our freedom to create and love our families.

Again, it doesn't matter whether other people agree with my train of thought, or not. The mere fact that there is real and tangible love on this side of the equation outweighs everything else.

---

Dynalo posted...

One of those cities has more opportunities than the other, and prices reflect that. Space isn't the issue, opportunities are.

This so much...Land/Space isn't the issue when it comes to 'Overpopulation' (which is a pseudosciene atm like 'Peak Oil'), but maybe Food Production and Pollution.

Hell with all the food that's wasted everyday, even that shouldn't be a problem.