My solution to the oil crises.

My solution is this. Population control. The oil supply and energy supply can no longer support the world. So it is time to have population control in many countries. This would drastically relieve the oil supply. I would start with France.

World population is out of control. 1930 it was about 2bil world wide, 1970 almost 4bil, and now almost 8bil.

I think we ought to cap it a three or four bil. But how to enforce it? Would do no good to cap it here in the US when the rest of the world is out of control worse than we are. I think every female needs to be fixed after having her second child. Now if we could enforce that it would all be good.

I say it is the oil that will go first not the food.

Could have sworn we reached the maximum sustainable population back in the 1800s!!! Or was it mid-1900s? Or was it late 1900s? Seems like year after year, there is a 'new' number. Sure, on day that number MIGHT be reached, but as long as someone keeps saying it over and over, eventually they WILL BE RIGHT!

I heard a story about 5 years ago that IF it were logistically possible, the entire world (remember, this was based on the population numbers then) could fit 'easily' in the state of TEXAS! THE ENTIRE WORLD! :shock:

So, you can see why I take these kinds of stories with a grain of salt!

Walterth3rd wrote:

Could have sworn we reached the maximum sustainable population back in the 1800s!!! Or was it mid-1900s? Or was it late 1900s? Seems like year after year, there is a 'new' number. Sure, on day that number MIGHT be reached, but as long as someone keeps saying it over and over, eventually they WILL BE RIGHT!

I don't think we're anywhere close to reaching the max sustainable number. That said, the numbers we have now make life less enjoyable. Just look at old videos from the 60's or 70's from any big city, half the crowding there is now. Even in most high population centers back then you could walk around and not be crowded like today. There was more rural areas, less houses all over mountains, forests, etc. Prices of land and homes were cheaper because there was less demand and more available. It's not just a matter of how many the planet can sustain, it's a matter of how many is to many that effects the quality of life.

I think we'd be better off at about half the number of people we have today.

eber322 wrote:

Walterth3rd wrote:

Could have sworn we reached the maximum sustainable population back in the 1800s!!! Or was it mid-1900s? Or was it late 1900s? Seems like year after year, there is a 'new' number. Sure, on day that number MIGHT be reached, but as long as someone keeps saying it over and over, eventually they WILL BE RIGHT!

I don't think we're anywhere close to reaching the max sustainable number. That said, the numbers we have now make life less enjoyable. Just look at old videos from the 60's or 70's from any big city, half the crowding there is now. Even in most high population centers back then you could walk around and not be crowded like today. There was more rural areas, less houses all over mountains, forests, etc. Prices of land and homes were cheaper because there was less demand and more available. It's not just a matter of how many the planet can sustain, it's a matter of how many is to many that effects the quality of life.

I think we'd be better off at about half the number of people we have today.

Fair enough