Should we stop fighting nature to save the planet?

Nature dictates that animals reduce their breeding habits where resources are scarce but we've created a system where penniless people become professional welfare mums leading to overpopulation and the destruction of natural habitats.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • olivia
    Lv 5
    6 months ago

    Ten Simple Things You Can Do to Help Protect the Earth

    1. Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Cut down on what you throw away. ...

    2. Volunteer. Volunteer for cleanups in your community. ...

    3. Educate. ...

    4. Conserve water. ...

    5. Choose sustainable. ...

    6. Shop wisely. ...

    7. Use long-lasting light bulbs. ...

    8. Plant a tree.

  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    Absolutely!!! I have even thought about doing a psycho analysis of my dogs fleas. If I can get them to feuding with each other like people do, they won't have time to bite me and my dog.

  • 7 months ago

    Definitely.

    But not so much to save the planet, because the planet has survived far worse afflictions than the current plague of swarming primates, but more to save ourselves.

  • 7 months ago

    If nature was left to run its course, all medical professional's would be killed off, all medications would be scraped and people who became ill would be left to die. since modern medicine is prolonging life a very long way past what nature would allow without medical intervention.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    Both Maria and Cheesy are wrong and right.

    (1) Foreign aid is only used as bribes. Never spent on the people

    (2) It is from the third world countries we get all our cr-ap made including the laptop, mobile phone and clothes Maria and Cheesy use and wear. WE are opening and running factories in third world countries with not a care about the way workers are treated, how much they get paid and the damage we are doing to their environment, water and air.

    (3) Developed countries produce more waste per capita because we have higher levels of consumption. Half of the population in poorer nations don’t have access to water, electricity and food.

    (4) In some third world countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and many other countries, they are already reducing their population. But in some countries people continue to keep breeding like rabbits. They need to limit the amount of kids they have. Four kids each is enough. So if two dies they have another two.

    Source(s): @Maria stupid cow! They have many kids because half of their children don’t reach the age of 5. They don’t have access to free and affordable healthcare like we do here! @Maria according to the UN that’s not the case. And foreign aid does NOT reach 80% of the population in African countries. You’re an idiot! Whether I am anonymous or not does not matter. Goodness knows how you were raised and where you get your information from. It’s unreliable, biased and misleading shit. But you’ll expect that from scum.
  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    I thought nature was fighting back by facilitating over-population, driving us all mad and inflating our money into worthlessness. Gaia's cold-equation plan aims for a rapid collapse of human society and the removal of the last three zeros from today's human population.

    The 'chemtrails' and suchlike are just displacement activity to make you imagine that Government is in control and has a plan.

  • 7 months ago

    Anon is partly right. It isn't people in first world countries who are overpopulating the planet by any means. Our birth rates are low. The UN has the UK along with Germany, Japan, Italy, France, South Korea and other first world countries down as needing "replacement migration".

    It's those in the third world whose populations have exploded in the last couple of decades thanks to aid from the West. Africa's population is projected to rise to 2.5 billion by 2050.

    It doesn't take a genius to work out where the "replacement migration" comes from.

    We could stop sending third world countries aid and allow their countries to naturally reduce to sustainable levels or offer aid only if the people there agree to be sterilised after one or two children (sending condoms and other contraceptives doesn't work, they won't use them), but the bleeding heart Christians and leftists in Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, etc as well as those in governments who generously spend our taxes on foreign aid.

  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    Birth rates in developed nations are either at or below replacement rate which is partly why we need high immigration, society simply wouldn't function if we had tons of old people and hardly any young people doing what needs to be done, we need to invest more in automation to deal with that.

    There are plenty other measures that can be implemented to save the environment.

    • 7 months agoReport

      You have a terrible memory, whose the weed toker here? our disagreement came because I wanted us to carry on with high immigration and invest in automation then bring it down gradually but you wanted to end immigration in the hope that it would accelerate it

  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    There should be severe reproductive restrictions for everyone in Britain except Britons (racial type). Britons who produce British offspring should receive large sums of money, to reward salvation-enabling activity and to give incentive.

    Why the British should continue:

    1. They have utility to the creation of a society that has maximum protection against belligerent, threatening and subversive activities and influences (uniform distinctiveness in a demographic makes detecting outside elements (thwarting hostile personnel) easier, and Britons also have the defensive advantage of being on an island)

    2. They have utility to the continuity of high general physical attractiveness, a very fun quality and crucial defensive component (protected primarily through preservation of people of specific European racial types (British and Scandinavian) or those who are a mixture of the types)

    3. To save people from being born non-British

    Source(s): Highly incisive, very aware and very intensely strong-minded and pragmatic logician and tactician, very high-grade threat detector, nurturer of life-saving mental enhancement and developer of superior methods of societal organisation. Vehement advocate of human advancement, invulnerability and continuity / realisation of desirable and/or protective human, societal and global attributes (will viciously oppose any person or entity threatening these, without exception).
    • Lv 4
      7 months agoReport

      For evidence of how very greatly tactically and mentally advanced I am, Google "survivalistinfo" (include the quotation marks) and see the Wix site.

      :D

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.