Solution 8 Edit

We should let nature take its course, in order to limit world population. History has shown that nature will eventually regulate world population, i.e. Black Death in the Middle Ages, natural disasters, etc. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:52, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote Nature often lets violence and mutual destruction limit populations. You want to include this as well, do you? --James
  • Symbol oppose vote No, we do not wish to include war and violence, but mainly we support a state of passiveness. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:05, January 31, 2014 (UTC) M&R
    • Symbol support vote Good Idea, as it does not imply a direct way of interference.Kristian-h (talk)Nikoline/Kristian
      • Symbol oppose vote Does this mean that we should stop looking for cures for diseases like aids or cancer? Because it will only affect the most rapidly growing populations without affecting developed countries. -- 12:00, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Nele and Theresa
  • Symbol oppose vote we are all for nature, and sure nature will take its course – but do you really want to let it go this far? --Anders Johnsen (talk) 12:03, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Kim/Anders
  • Symbol oppose vote Human interference would in most of the case mentioned above go against human rights and be paternalistic. Furthermore, the world would eventually be controlled by an elite, made up of Western countries. Therefore, we suggest the passive approach, in order to avoid some of us playing God. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:09, January 31, 2014 (UTC)M&R
    • Symbol oppose vote Human rights will be of smaller importance once the world is heavily overpopulated anyway, because the struggle for food will be of prior political concern. -- 12:13, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Anna, Ole, Eva
    • Symbol oppose vote Yes, the world would be controlled by an elite, a surviving one that is, the rest we just let die? -- Kim/Anders