Dragnix.Net

I say we take all the environmentalists and ship them to antartica. That'd solve both problems.

I would aggree, sort of, but i would probably get sent there as well, lol

(I did a lot more searching than what it looks like here. It is a short copy of what I started with, and then a rewrite after some new research. )


The main problem is the need to fix things from the start of the “trash cycleâ€￾. Things need to be made to where as little waste is left after we use them. And using the words which have been hammered into our minds for many years, we need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. And a newer added one, rethink.

Other than trying to work out what to do with all the waste, just make as little as possible. For now we will just have to send the final unusable items to a landfill or other waist depositories. The main problem is the storage of toxic waste. There are some “safeâ€￾ storage areas, but only time will see to that. And then it depends on what is what.


My rewrite was due to these links. The first is for the Vermont school system on teaching about waste management. And the other is a link to the EPA, which has all the rules and regulations on how wastes are dealt with.
http://www.vtrecyclers.org/wastekit/index.htm.

http://www.epa.gov/


As for the growing population, regulate the number of children people can have. Enforce the death penalty in all states. (if not the world) And there are other areas of non-populated areas where we can live. Maybe even create the "lethal lottery" where people are chosen at random to clear up the excess population. Or we can only allow people to live to a limited age and kill them at that age. There are many ways to slow the growing population, some are moral and a lot are not (as the ones I listed).

Okay, I can live with the trash solutions, but not so much of the population control. I mean, yes, I agree with the limited children thing, but not with the killing. I think that a couple should only be able to have ONE child for a few generations, that will decrease the population enough for a while, then when the number of humans is at an easily sustainable number, change it to two, two for a couple, that way the population stays the same in the exeption of divorces(I guess there will have to be a couple limits on that too). There is no way that killing is going to ever be accepted by the public.

I'm not saying that the government might not try such a solution. Cue dramatic music. But if the American public is against stem cells in the most part, there is no way that they would go for executionings. My personall opinion on the death penalty is neutral, I say there are too many wrongly convicted felons, who, if had been put to death would NEVER have got their life back. I say, if we can't prevent things like that we shouldn't be able to put anyone to death, but that is just my opinion.

Oh, and sorry if I angered anyone, I got annoyed with getting my brain boiled, but I guess such a thing is good for a person.

A lot of the killing part was more of a joke from a lot of futuristic movies with the "ultimate solution" ideas they give. Just be glad I didn't post the 'Soylent Green' surprise ending to the list, its really harsh. Most of that came from 4 and a half-hours of reading information on waste disposal, and need a target.

But the single child thing is a better idea for now. And maybe "fixing" the creators of the child afterwards. This may keep teens from having children as well. With an ending result as this they would think twice about it.

*Laughs* Yeah, that'd work, and anyone who wanted to adopt would have to get their children from undeveloped countries. But then again, it will be a little while before "fixing" would be viewed as publicly acceptable. Sex is too much a part of our society for that right now, which is a lot of our problem.

add stuff to our food that kills sperm? I know there are things out there that can do that without much side effects. Also, I'm not sure on peoples views on abortion, but if we could popularize that...

Also, about the death penalty, there is a slim chance of an innocent person getting killed. There is about a .3% chance of something like that happening.

How has this topic split into three? Tempest should split the thread.

Population: Population control is what Chinas doing, and it's destroying the country. The average European birth rate is about 1.56, way below the replacement rate (2.1). So for every nine couples who have two children, one couple must have three. Read America Alone by Mark Steyn.

Antartica: What would the other nations do if someone just marched in there and built a small town? Has anyone got any reasonably influential position (ie. columnist)?

Waste: Just bury it. Dig a big hole, chuck all the waste in (including nuclear) and toss the soil back in. Use these deserts.

Population: Adding on to DR, people who have a regulated amount of kids might have a preference as to what gender, what hair color, etc, and do like the people do in china: keep having children and leaving the unwanted ones to die. Never good.

Antarctica: Very very cold. Also, the only place on Earth not polluted yet by humans. and there might be a prehistoric lake underneath that holds the keys to evolution (but it's too cold and deep to check it out)

Waste: space station! get a robot up in orbit that collects all the trash satellites, bring the down to earth, meld them into a huge container, send it into orbit, and put waste in it (also provide it with a compacter - more space)

You've still got the problem of launching the waste.

Throw it in an active volcano.

I dunno, it might work.

Then again the gasses of the waste might pollute the surrounding areas. I like the idea of launching the waste into outer space, however, the cost of doing this might be too much for the worlds countries to agree on this plain. So unless mankind finds a way to work together without thinking/worrying about money, that plain will die before it is born. Ah, well.

Yeah, the newspapers can put that story next to the one about the snowball fight in hell.

That's funny.

Personally, I think that Antarctica should remain country-less. Why, well because on this planet there are no truly wild places were people do not live except for Antarctica. It is the last continent that is truly free and I think it should stay that way.

dragonfly wrote:Waste: space station! get a robot up in orbit that collects all the trash satellites, bring the down to earth, meld them into a huge container, send it into orbit, and put waste in it (also provide it with a compacter - more space)

By Boccob, that would cost an amazing amount. NASA is having trouble paying for its current space launches, sending things into space in not possible.

Just remember who will be paying for launching trash into space. It will be the people. So think about having to pay just to toss a bag of trash into a pickup station or really paying a lot for roadside pickup. And think of the pollution from the transport to the launching stations.

Hey, my mom found this article on global warming. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 103123.htm

Comments?

I love it, for one it shows my "look to the past" as possible bunk. And it shows our current "heat wave" is nothing. I think I'll read more on that.

Under Antartica there might be ancient civilisations frozen. The might also be - clonable - dinosours, maybe even dragons and wyverns. I want to go on a dig expedition when I'm older to check it out.

DragonRider wrote:Under Antartica there might be ancient civilisations frozen. The might also be - clonable - dinosours, maybe even dragons and wyverns. I want to go on a dig expedition when I'm older to check it out.

Cool! I think I will join you! Antarctica may not be colonised but people cant stop a few explorations...