Animal overpopulation

Wild animals seem to be able to control their own populations based on survival rates.

Domestic animals are only controlled by us humans. Because of overpopulation of cats and dogs, we humans have tried spay/neutering to help the control.

But the animal overpopulation that is the biggest threat to the planet is humans! Right now there are 7.752 billion of us on a planet that should only have about 3 billion.

Maybe we should give some thought to human spay/neutering?

 

Regarding spay and neutering of humans………….

As quite as it’s kept, population control has always been on the agenda of every developed country

Whenever there’s a natural disaster somewhere in the world (especially in a third world country) the financial aid is often held up by the U.N. until the country agrees to accept birth control.
There are numerous examples of this most notably in Haiti during the 2010 earthquake (although it was unnecessary since the death toll exceeded 230,000)

Even here in America during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while there was a shortage of badly needed medical supplies, health clinics and hospitals were overwhelmed with IUDs
and condoms coming in from the federal government.through FEMA

 

Only under certain conditions.

 

How Many People Can Earth Support? | Live Science

Where are you getting the planet should only have 3 billion people number from?

 

I think the fact that humans have caused both global warming and the 6th mass extinction, not to mention a huge plastic problem, is proof the earth cant really support 7 billion people under our current system.

If we had a better system then I could see 10 billion. If, on a worldwide level, we used a clean energy. If we built cities up instead of suburbs out to prevent habitat loss, plus discontinued the use of harsh chemicals that affect animal populations and plant life negatively, if we didnt create massive amounts of trash, etc

As it stands now I agree more with 3 billion versus 10 billion

 

I don't disagree with any of that but that's all things that can be addressed and changed (will they is another matter). And those are all things we should look at before entertaining the idea of sterilizing humans. But, it's an excellent point

 

Oh yeah I should have mentioned..I definitely dont agree with sterilizing humans lol. Unless it's voluntary of course

 

It seems you're volunteering. Good for you. If there's no infection, you'll feel better within a few days. And look at the line. I may come back and queue up later.

 

You know, too many humans feel that having children is a right. Hell, so many have them even though they can't support them. When I talk about mandatory sterilization, I'm meaning that all humans should be neutered before reproduction age. But, it can be done with a reversible ability. Then, if they later are responsible in having, and raising, a child it could be allowed. But we have insurance that we can purchase that covers almost every contingency in life, such as auto, homeowners, and medical and the reversal could require the prospective parents to pay for child insurance that would cover unexpected events.

I never had, or wanted, children. And I don't mind paying taxes for schools and other expenses that other people's children cost. But I've never understood why those people with children, that cost us all more, pay less in taxes. If anything, they should pay a bit more.

 

Taking children from their parents and forcibly sterilizing them, then making them pass some sort of arbitrary, man-made test in order to get a reversal later in life?
Triple yikes.

Like it or not, reproduction IS a human right. One of the most basic rights

 

Years of self regulation mostly goes wrong when us clever humans get involved, such as the introduction of rabbits to Australia and grey squirrels to the UK.
Most animals that cause serious environmental problems are not native to the country, one exception being rats. However, we have no real way of knowing how historically rats were spread by ships.

 

You have it the wrong way aroundi, if we want to get rid of a couple billion people, we should kill all the old people first

They dont work, cost too much to take care of, and they smell funny

 

Yeah we do,they get on a ship, ship sails somewhere else, then they get off

 

We worry about the small things, yet ignore major factors.
I do not support the theory of carbon emissions being responsible for global warming, since the oxygen levels on this planet self regulate. Forest fires being the regulator, a hypothesis that I have held for many years and is now supported by research.
However, since the planet is an island in space, heat has to balance.
We ignore our interference, which is nuclear power. Power stations are less than 30% efficient and we dump the reactor cooling water in the oceans. This ends up as enough energy to erode thousands of tons of ice from the ice caps every hour. A schoolboy could do the maths, yet we chose to ignore it.!!!!

 

But no one checks their tickets, hence we have no figures.

 

Yeah, as a queer woman, I already have to jump through a zillion hoops to have children. I can't really support adding more hoops

 

Buy they're not still having rug-rats!

 

.

 

Easily fixed, just everytime a new baby is born we turn a babyboomer into a pot roast, 1 for 1

 

Lead by example - you go first !!!