Just a few ideas/future problems:
-Restrict all couples to having 2 children. This way the population would slowly decrease over time because of people dying at a young age and people not having children. I believe that you need 2.1 babies per couple to sustain so 2 should slowly lower it.
-I really hope it does not come to this but someone will introduce a virus of some kind which is extremely deadly and will take out large numbers of people but it goes away after a short while so there is still a population left.
-War, it is bound to happen and unfortunately it will not be an even trimming down of population, it never has done so in the past, but rather whole races and nations taken out and other countries are not affected. It is obviously not a good idea to start a war but as food slowly runs out and materials become unobtainable then there is bound to be some struggle (Middle East and Oil is a good example). However, unlike some wars this will most likely go on for a long time and many people will die.
-I don't know if this is ever going to happen but once the earth is exhausted of all resources there will need to be some sort of travelling into space to find other planets which we could live on. Chances are adjustments would be made to people's bodies and lifestyles but a strange life is better than no life at all.
-As TMM said, meats such as Cow, Sheep, Etc. are not efficient. Rather use this rich soil for farming crops such as wheat and corn which can both have many uses and are a relatively cheap food which can be transported easily from continent to continent (particularly wheat).
Demographic Problems:
-If you look at it, the average age of people when they die is increasing because of improved medecine, etc. This results in having large numbers of people in First World Countries that are old and not of much use to the economy yet we use a lot of money and resources looking after them. yes, you need to have some respect for them because they 'built our countries', the foundations they have set are a little loose though. I have nothing against old people (aged 65+, retirement age) because they are important to their family but they really don't provide the world with anything expect cookies
-War, it is bound to happen and unfortunately it will not be an even trimming down of population, it never has done so in the past, but rather whole races and nations taken out and other countries are not affected. It is obviously not a good idea to start a war but as food slowly runs out and materials become unobtainable then there is bound to be some struggle (Middle East and Oil is a good example). However, unlike some wars this will most likely go on for a long time and many people will die.
War, however, ends. WW-2 ended here with a baby boom. War kills people, but also creates people. I don't think that is a possible solution.
-War, it is bound to happen and unfortunately it will not be an even trimming down of population, it never has done so in the past, but rather whole races and nations taken out and other countries are not affected. It is obviously not a good idea to start a war but as food slowly runs out and materials become unobtainable then there is bound to be some struggle (Middle East and Oil is a good example). However, unlike some wars this will most likely go on for a long time and many people will die.
War, however, ends. WW-2 ended here with a baby boom. War kills people, but also creates people. I don't think that is a possible solution.
That brings up a pertinent point. What if another boom comes, and we further exhaust and deplete what little we have left, refusing to turn to clean energy and efficiently produced traditional crops?
"America. Show a nipple on television and the whole country goes ape-shit." -DubbelDekker
admirschleck wrote:
Made a mistake. So, you'd just kill 10k of people, right? Bizarre.
that just m--
I'm sorry, I really am but thanks to NTTHRASH post I can't be serious anymore.
I'll try to continue my train of thought tomorrow
let's try this again
admirschleck wrote:
Made a mistake. So, you'd just kill 10k of people, right? Bizarre.
that just my mindset. like I said before it surely is not the best possible solution to fixing the food shortage and I think that cutting the population down is the best option to fix that (again it's not most humane thing to do)
Week 3 is the dilemma of Tibet and what should happen there. Should things remain as they are, should Tibet get more autonomy or become an independent country?
Also, I need some more ideas. I can't think of all of them on my own.
There's not much that can be done about the situation, in all honesty. The people there can't declare anything, about the most they can do is initiate a terrorist attack. I think this issue needs time, would not be a good idea for anyone to do too much atm.
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021
NTTHRASH wrote:
I thought Tibet was already independent.
??
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
But don't you think it's possible to pressurize China, with sanctions? It's possible with Russia, so why not with China as well. China depends on export to the EU and the US, if that is cancelled China is in some serious trouble.
Selwink wrote:
But don't you think it's possible to pressurize China, with sanctions? It's possible with Russia, so why not with China as well. China depends on export to the EU and the US, if that is cancelled China is in some serious trouble.
Unfortunately that would mean a lot of problems for us as well. We are afar too dependent on China.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Selwink wrote:
But don't you think it's possible to pressurize China, with sanctions? It's possible with Russia, so why not with China as well. China depends on export to the EU and the US, if that is cancelled China is in some serious trouble.
Unfortunately that would mean a lot of problems for us as well. We are afar too dependent on China.
More dependent on them, than they are on us. With a domestic market of over 1 billion people it won't be as massively damaging as action would be against Russia for example.
The EU would possibly have the ability to do so, but not if sanctions grow with Russia. The US just doesn't have a hope in hell of being able to input serious sanctions on China for a very very very long time.
Genetic engineering has led to many great strides in the advancing of the human race, but has been a large grey area in the world for a long period. Many people even approve of all of the wonderful benefits that genetic research has given us, like pest-resistant crops, among many other things, but still there are also many opponents to this practice. It is yet to be seen, however, if these effects will continue to be good for mankind, or if something may turn sour. Genetic research and engineering has developed much of our modern-day food and plants material, but it also has adverse effects. This leads to the question; should genetic engineering be allowed?
Much of the food in the world is now genetically modified in some fashion. This is the biggest advancement in food that ever happened, with geneticists finding new ways every day to improve the taste and pricing of food around the globe(Clapper, 2013). In fact, these genetically altered foods are even giving humans benefits from their nutritional value, as vitamins can be added into the foods to improve the quality of the products. These vitamin-rich, cheap foods can be used globally, especially in third-world countries with food issues(Whitman, 2000). This is a huge boost for humanity as a whole, not just a few countries. This contribution is a major one, and can help with more than just food.
The seeds of genetically modified organisms are also able to help third-world countries, as well as just about anywhere on Earth. Many of the seeds that are genetically modified have pest resistance, which allows for a larger crop and easier transportation and sorting. Additionally, herbicide resistance has become important as well, as weed killers can now be applied to cropland without damaging the crops themselves. Also, there is a hanging issue of poor health in crops, but these seeds often have engineered immunity to different viruses and “bugs”. More important to equatorial countries, some seeds also have resistance to the warm weather and humidity that causes some non-modified seeds to die off. There is also an equivalent for cold weather, which allows plants to grow through the winter months, and allows for steady growth in the more northern regions of the world(Whitman, 2000). So what about other benefits to growth?
Genetically modified seeds and plants are commonly geared toward growing benefits, and so another logical step was to incorporate resistance to natural phenomena.
“As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places(Whitman, 2000).”
This, of course, is important to a lot of areas without a solid weather pattern, such as Africa and the Middle East. However, not all benefits of genetically engineered crops are pertaining to their resistances to outside factors.
Crops can now be genetically altered to have desirable characteristics in almost every facet, so why not use it to clean up the issues we caused, such as toxifying the air, and throwing dangerous metals and alloys into the soil? By engineering trees and other plants, we can make environmental “cleaners” out of nature("Genetic Engineering Advantages &," 2006). Plants can now be given the ability to suck up more CO2 out of the air, giving us humans more oxygen to breathe, and reducing the greenhouse effect in the process. Some trees have even been engineered to take metals out of the soil and to use the metal to grow faster(Whitman, 2000). And more so, by introducing new alleles into nature, the biodiversity of the plants and animals is increased by simply normal breeding. This allows animals to control their own breeding patterns, but still introduces a beneficial gene to the pool. Whilst there are many plant boosts, humans also receive benefits that may not be clear and apparent at first.
Some geneticists are beginning to block out diseases using genetic engineering. Using their genetic analysis processes, they can see genetic and hereditary diseases in the genome and warn in advance of problems that may arise("Genetic Engineering Advantages &," 2006). In addition, plants can now have vaccines “programmed” into their genetic code, allowing for easy delivery of different medicines and immunizations. This development allows for safer transport of the medicines, as well as a better method of getting the meds into a human or animal(Whitman, 2000). Geneticists are even getting close to a cure for cancer, thanks to genetic research and engineering. Sometime in the future, we could even see an end to life-threatening issues with cancer and similar ailments(Clapper, 2013).
Adversely, humans are also suffering from issues with genetically modified organisms. Iit is important to note that, above all else, humans are suffering extreme short-term issues from genetically modified foods, or GMOs, for the sake of simplicity. The healthiness of a human isn’t measured by any one scale, so it’s very difficult to see adverse effects in the human body on any kind of scale or system. As a whole, however, it is clear that people are getting unhealthier, as people are gaining weight and losing their immune systems, even if people are living longer and having productive lives. The upcoming generations are seeing the issues associated with GMOs, headaches, mild susceptibility to diseases, upset stomachs, and other minor symptoms of random genetic problems(Whitman, 2000).
Related to that topic, humans are slowly becoming allergic to things that they were not allergic to ever before, including products such as soybeans and peanuts("The Cons of Genetic," 2000). These products have become extremely modified, and few, if any original plants still exist, as the new strains take over. These plants are also now toxic, and have even begun to kill different species of bugs and animals due to the amounts of toxin(Whitman, 2000). These toxins are damaging not only the foods themselves, but also damaging the ecosystem. This may cause some instabilities in the world around us, even if we think that only a few butterflies are dying off.
Some extreme effects may occur when the world around us is damaged, including some perhaps permanent changes that will forever disrupt the balance of nature. When a few creatures die off, some animals above them in the food chain may begin to die off as well. This causes a massive cycle of multiple different species falling to endangerment, or even extinction, because there isn’t enough food, meaning that we may even eventually feel the effects of not having cows, or deer, etcetera, to eat the meat from("Genetic Engineering Advantages &," 2006). These situations are nearly impossible to recover from, and thus there may be some serious issues there. Also, these toxified plants have human issues outside of the environment as well.
Many legal problems have arisen as a result of these different GMOs and their gene entities. Companies have been claiming patents on different gene codes, and writing guidelines for other people to use that established gene, or set of genes. In a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, it was decided that human genes were not allowed to be patented, as nothing is invented or created. However, it was ruled that plant genes are fair game for patenting, and that products that come as a result of genetically engineered items are also allowed to be claimed for a patent. This was an important decision, as it meant that fewer legal issues would arise, or so that is the hope. What happens if genetically modified seeds get purchased, and are destructive?
Sometimes, genetically altered products can contribute towards widespread issues in crop planting and harvesting. When modified seeds are planted, they all have the same genes, give or take a couple, meaning that if even one plants fails, the whole crop may be susceptible to failure, especially if it is an environmental factor that keeps the seeds down("The Cons of Genetic," 2000). This can be catastrophic. Farmers would die from lack of food and money, and there would be food shortages across the globe if it happened to multiple farmers. The issues that arise from crop failure are endless, even disease from malnutrition.
Disease can also come about by the GMOs themselves. These genetically manufactured foods have started to cause horrible issues in the human body related to their nutritional benefits. Foods that are processed by geneticists often have little, if any, value to a human in terms of health benefits. Unless the food is engineered to have real vitamins and nutritional power in it, then the material is essentially just taste, and has no benefit to one’s health. This can cause the immune system to be ineffective, which can cause pain and sickness. If the same things are happening in animals who come in contact with the genetically modified material, what does that mean for them?
These animals and insects begin to have serious problems when us humans plant certain genetically modified crops. Some genetically engineered plants can alter the environment far more than it seems. When a few species can’t eat food off of plants because of pesticides, they begin to die off from a lack of food. These plants, being pesticide-resistant due to their engineering, are fine, but the insects and animals begin to die. Then, slowly, the biodiversity decreases, and creatures that depended on each other disappear, until suddenly, the whole ecosystem is disrupted(Whitman, 2000).
Several solutions have come to fruition over the course of GMO infiltration into the world. Some researchers have said that continuing GMO use for the sake of medical research is the best option. However, the results that begin to enumerate as effects of this practice can lead to unrestricted use of the technology, resulting in a possibly catastrophic event such as weaponization of bulletproof skin, or other military advances. Additionally, some have said that unrestricted, free-reign use of genetic research is best for mankind. This is a potentially deadly and horrible fate, as GMO products will, as a result of being cheaper and more efficient, become the only crops/products available. This will isolate areas of the market, causing economic imbalance, and eventually, the predicted collapse of the global trade market. Another widely supported and researched view, the replacement of engineering with selective breeding only, takes away the issues involved with health for genetic modulations. However, this solution can cause animal cruelty, insofar as owners killing the animals that they do not desire the traits of, causing, possibly, mass extinction of entire species. Alternatively, there is a solution that researchers have thought may be the best way to end the issue: cancel all genetic research entirely. While this will stop technological advancement into the said area, it will also avoid many of the health, economic, and legal problems that arise as a result of genetic grey zones. However, these are not the only possible ways to go about the issue at hand.
One way to deal with this situation plaguing the world is to enact tight restrictions on all of the parties involved with the production, research, sale, and enterprise of genetic engineering. These restrictions could include mandatory, extensive testing before release into the market, and also universal restriction and/or ban on genes that are tested to be harmful in any global way. These restrictions would cause minor civil unrest while the global market slightly dips, as well as possible price increases for commodities like corn and rice. However, the overall economic competition would be increased, as regular farmers and domestic workers could once again participate in the global market, without worrying about being stomped by the larger, more lucrative GMO companies. Additionally, the world’s governments could establish a global administration for allowing or restricting market penetration of GMOs. Something like the FDA(Food and Drug Administration), a Genetic Modification Organization for Consumer Safety(or GMOCS, for short), could be implemented to stop potential threats to the public by forcing mass approval for genetically engineered organisms or products. This narrows the market share for global enterprises, and again increasing domestic exporting. This also would increase the safety of any genetically modified entities entering the international consumer base, helping to protect the citizens and environment of Earth. Also, the advancement of technologies would not be prohibited, though becoming more safe by the administration’s stopping of unhealthy practices. Lastly, there is an option to allow all testing and research into genetics, but prohibit public release for the concern of those consuming the engineered products. This is an effective way of maximizing the scientific benefits to genetic research, while protecting the masses from being victimized by the negative impacts of genetically modified products.
In conclusion, the adverse effects of genetic engineering and modification can become a single, widespread catastrophe. Additionally, the problem is only accelerated, due to the fact that these genetically modified seeds and plants are meant to stay valid and alive, and may have already spread beyond human control. The real question should that should be asked is; do humans even have the right to plant these crops that destroy our biomes and our homelands? Are humans, as a whole, allowed to be ‘God’? Or, one could look at the benefits, as genetic engineering has been utilized to reinstate biodiversity, and support nature. Additionally, humans have healthier, more fulfilling lives with foods and helpful products made by geneticists. The world will know eventually what the answer is to this issue, but for time being, it is impossible to tell.
An essay I wrote on said topic.
"America. Show a nipple on television and the whole country goes ape-shit." -DubbelDekker
baseballlover312, 06-03-14 : "Nuke Moscow...Don't worry Russia, we've got plenty of love to go around your cities"
Sarah Palin, 08-03-14 (CPAC, on Russian aggression) : "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke"
Big thanks to jdog for making this AMAZING userbar!
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
