I want to hear which issue(s) you are most concerned about in the world today.
Do you have any radical ideas that have the potential to bring awareness or change to the issue?
Would you be willing to write an article about this issue for an up-and-coming website?
I am creating a new website that focuses on radical ways to bring attention and change to any serious social issues. I'm asking for people to write concise articles on issues that they want to bring awareness to. These articles should also offer some type of solution, and thinking outside of the box is encouraged.
Let me know if you want to get involved/know more.
I have too many hubs already written about many problems and no need for radical solutions. Common sense goes a long way.
I am concerned about overpopulation and have been concerned for a long time. We are destroying our planet by over breeding and over taxing resources. Common sense isn't very common when it comes to this issue. Greed plays its role in keeping the overpopulation ball rolling. Religion plays its role too. Making people aware of how they are being manipulated and in the end short changed might help.
In the bigger picture overpopulation is not a problem
What bigger picture? The more people there are the more resources get chewed up. End of resources the end of everything. Right now the oceans are being bepleted of fish. What were once common fish species are facing extinction. The orangutans are facing extinction because their native forests are being torn down to satisfy the greed of man. The amazon rainforest is being chopped down at an alarming rate and the rainforests have been described by scientists as the lungs of our world. What the hell is bigger than that? You want to talk about pollution? Less people less pollution. How are too many mouths to feed not a problem?
The "population bomb" as doomsday scenario has long since been discredited. Of course we need to manage our resources wisely, but overpopulation is not to blame. The sky isn't falling.
No sky not falling but suburbs are turning into overcrowded slums.
Yes they are. You really haven't been around. In the UK the population is being bumped up horrifically. In Australia the same thing is happening. And, yes, slums are forming. In both the UK and Australia this trend has been going on for decades now and it is getting worse. Local infrastructure is crumbling. There was a time when people could trust tap water. Nowadays you need a filter or to rely on bottled or boiled water. There is an ongoing housing shortage in Sydney and the outlying suburbs. Yes your metaphorical sky is falling. I don't want to live in a slum where a tree let alone a park is a luxury to have on your street. Maybe you want to live like that. I certainly don't and I don't see why I should bow down to the obnoxious greed of others who would like everyone who is not upper middle class in all Western style countries to live in such a way.
Wow, certain parts of certain cities are crowded? Shocking. That has been the case since there have been cities. Europe's population is in clear decline. If you are feeling crowded in the UK go to another part of Europe (or to the British countryside for that matter) where there's plenty of space. As for Australia...it is only the second least densly populated country on earth for crying out loud.
Not entirely sure of the title but I was browsing the book store last night in the new release non-fiction. Something like population time bomb. Anyway, apparently world population will actually start decreasing soon. The birth rate has slowed down/is slowing down enough. Also on the topic is planet engineering. An academic at East Anglia university amongst others are considering what was once science fiction now to be possibly the only solution to stop the planet forcing us to death.
I hope you are right WizardOfOz about the overpopulation problem. I really do. As for the planet forcing us to death I think you have it wrong. We have been working hard to kill our own planet and unfortunately when we do succeed our planet with not be able to sustain us. No, planet earth is the victim here not the villain.
Wrong. The Earth will never die. That is the whole point. We are only killing ourselves if the environment cannot sustain our race. The Earth will adapt to the conditions.
Sure, WizardOfOz the earth can go on for billions of years as a lifeless ball in space. Of course the sun isn't forever and well before the sun is gone the earth will be gone. This is science but it is science that has little to do with the fate of man.
If you want the earth to carry on without life or I should say give up life on its surface way before time then fine. We are heading in that direction. Can life make a come back after humans are gone? Yes. There have been times when life on the planet was reduced to almost zero and there was a come back. If life was reduced to total zero I am sure life would eventually re-establish itself. The only thing is that we will be the ones creating the circumstances for the disaster and we are extremely unlikely to survive the disaster we will unleash.
Sure we are killing ourselves if the environment cannot sustain our species. Before that happens of course we will make a hell of a lot of other species go extinct. So we at least agree then that the planet isn't forcing us to death. We are doing it to ourselves and the planet is not the villain. Very good.
this villain/victim thing you got going on. 'very good.'
so we are not killing the planet. you have seen the light on that one. awesome.
we kill some other species. fine. whatever.
so that settles that.
Now, Sydney has a housing shortage? right. not last time I was there. A year ago. I guess Perth has a housing shortage?
You don't work for the Real Estate Institute?
The overpopulation of the planet is linked with economics. The current economic models all require increase in everything to sustain it, goods, money and people. When world issues force the economic bright sparks to find a sustainable model that relies on balance things might settle down. It is a well known fact that the more comforts we have (as a culture or community) the less kids we have.
People have loads of kids when there is a good chance of many of them dying, like third world countries and the west generally in the earlier parts of this century.
The current economics force the depletion of irreplaceable world resources for profit - not for the good of people generally. When this changes so will explosive population increases.
The exceptions of course are as pointed up earlier in this thread those religious sects that encourage breeding more of themselves and China who have at least tried to limit their population.
The only real issue is CONSUMPTION... humans are consuming more than the planet can produce.
Clearly there are those on both ends of the scale, those with way more and those with way less.
But the rate of consumption can not continue. The planet can only give so much, but humans will keep taking until it's completely destroyed.
Our Economy in the United States is entirely driven by consumption.
How much is enough? And who gets what?
Those are the real core issues.
Keeping dead people alive by hooking them up to life-support. This I cannot understand. It seems to me the only purpose is to drive up costs....
I think this is a more personal thing for a family...keeping hope alive. People should make their family aware of their wishes in this matter.
most children don't think about it therefore most adults don't consider it before the age of 30 or so.
It may be keeping hope alive, but is that really a good thing? Especially if there is no hope (I'm thinking of someone in a coma for 15 years before finally dying)
Wow... we do agree on something raf.
I have ssaid for years I believe these "extreme measures" they take in ERs to keep the dead breathing for months or even years is to do no more than get what they can financially from both the patients family and the Govt..
It should not be allowed in a lot of cases.
Have you been thinking we don't agree on anything?
I think it does more harm than good to keep the dead alive.
Don't forget that one factor in medical decisions is the rate of litigation in this country. Doctors have to pay huge costs for malpractice insurance. With the prospect of being sued if they don't try every measure available, they sometimes make (or encourage, or even simply offer) decisions that most of us would agree are really not in the long-term best interest of the patient or their family. Also, some families - in choosing among the options that are offered - will use pie-in-the-sky, pipe-dream hopeful reasoning more than down-to-earth-based reality.
I swear, there is just way too much put into life that doesn't need to be there or even thought of, sometimes.
My response to these kinds of issues: You don't have to do it just because you can.
I absolutely agree that "You don't have to do it just because you can."
This statement by TMMason...
"I have ssaid for years I believe these "extreme measures" they take in ERs to keep the dead breathing for months or even years is to do no more than get what they can financially from both the patients family and the Govt.."
...is really quite insensitive and even offensive.
There are many aspects to end-of-life decisions that are difficult to discuss in a HubPages forum, where we like to express ourselves in little sound bites and where emotions get out of hand very quickly. I don't mean to squelch or dismiss the discussion in any way, but I would like to toss out that I think it's more complex than most Americans like to wrestle with.
I know that my own experiences and the experiences of my family do not speak for the entire of human experience. But in the experiences that I have had and in those I have heard about, the medical professionals will tell the patient and/or their family about various options and the pros and cons of each; but the patient (or their family) has the final say in deciding which option to pursue, even if it is expensive and has little hope for a positive outcome. Milking families and government for money? No! If that exists at all (IF), it is certainly nowhere near most or even much of the time.
Please understand I have many relatives who are in traditional medical fields, but who are also quite open and forward in their thinking; and I am trying to be as unbiased as possible, given my background.
I think TMMason is saying some medical professionals take advantage of families who are afraid to face reality. I know it's my thought sometimes.... I sincerely believe the respectable medical professionals are too few and far between.
Well if you think my posts are insensitive and offensive... you are welcome not to read them.
Other than that... too bad.
Yes, I am and everyone else is welcome not to read or comment on your or anyone else's posts. We also are welcome to read and comment on them, just as you are, whether in agreement or not. (BTW, I wrote that one statement was insensitive and offensive, not "posts.")
I have seen some of your posts in other threads, and I find that there are times when I agree with you in content, even if not in tone.
I really am curious about your meaning in the statement I quoted. Is it possible that what you meant was not what I understood? Do you truly believe that emergency room personnel - doctors, nurses, and all technicians - encourage families to keep patients alive with artificial or technological means, simply in order to get money? How did you come to that conclusion? Have there been incidents or experiences in your life or in the lives of people you know that have led you to that position?
Medical malpractice costs are a significant but relatively small factor in skyrocketing health care costs.
Cost is a huge concern and a valid discussion. The issue under discussion which I was responding to was the purpose of heroic medical measures. Some earlier comments seemed to indicate that medical professionals provide or recommend these extreme measures specifically in order to get money from families or from the government, and I disagree with that (strongly).
I realize that I am very fortunate in knowing and being associated with medical professionals of high personal and professional integrity. I do not actually know any that I would not put in that category. And, believe it or not, some of them are even Democrats.
EDIT: I did know one doctor that did not fit in the category of high personal and professional integrity, but he was not devious or malevolent - he was simply stupid, now retired, Gottseidank!
That is, it should not be paid for by Medicare or subsidized by taxpayers.
People who think radical solutions solve anything when usually just stopping doing what you were doing before is the answer.
Oh and to the original post. I would write articles for any website but for a price probably exceeding the current rate. Nonetheless, contact me if you like. I can email you some relevant copy. I don't hub much anymore after I dropped my other account. However, if you want shake and bake marketing copy, I am sure you can get it around here for almost peanuts.
Ron. I also heard a scientist on the BBC say that population will peak soon and settle at around 8 billion. I cannot remember the story, but the thrust of it was birth rates hitting the wall I think.
Gosh so many issue's, I am working on a few at the moment. I think your idea is a good one and although common sence should provail it often doesn't and radical ideas are often needed.
The oil spill has been on my mind at the moment, common sence tells me it should probably have been beter maintained but as it wasn't we need a radical solution for that. That is just one of many, I would like to know more about your project, if you don't mind giving away details that is.
Social problems or issues cannot be solved by conventional means, as the problems emanate out of conventional restrictions place on the society by elders. So, we have to skip the controls and undertake radical means to solve social issues.
It's funny how we "debate" about what the real problems are, even though they are blatantly clear.
I, for one, would like to start at the core of the issue. What is the core? It's about the philosophy of how our governments are run. Where are our priorities and are they about profits or solutions?
Secondly, we have to convince people to be smarter consumers (if they live in a capitalistic society) and to take responsibility for the LOCAL economy as it directly effects the bigger picture.
We can't wait for the answers to come. We have to be the answers. Hopefully I can find people who are passionate about this same idea and will help promote this kind of thinking!
By the way guys, I do like all the points you're bringing up. Interesting read.
The real problem in the world today is America's departure from her roots and founding priciples.
My radical solution.
We return to free market capitolism, return to the Constitution and cease our full on head first run into European Socialism.
And we start by getting rid of the Progressive/Socialists and those who want to fundamentally transform our country which are peppered throughout our Govt..
by kirstenblog7 years ago
I have heard many good arguments about overpopulation putting a huge burden on resources, from China to India overpopulation has been a issue that needs dealing with. So what is the argument that this is not a problem...
by qwark4 years ago
What will the method be that is used to necessarily "reduce/cull" the human population to a level Mother "Gaia" can, comfortably and successfully, nurture it ?
by fishskinfreak20086 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_china_for … Nld29tYW4-This is just the latest example of someone in CHINA being "forced to" do something. Although this isn't surprising anymore, it is very...
by aka-dj8 years ago
I heard a radio program the other day. It reported on a study done on the future of our natural resources. The study results showed, that at the current rate of consumption, along with the population growth forcasts, we...
by Cagsil5 years ago
Hey Hubbers,It's irony that I post this because of the many threads talking about how the world would be without "religious" folk of all different types/forms of religion.So, would the world be better if...
by Amie Warren7 years ago
I don't have a religion, but I am a pantheist. The reason I chose pantheism is because it isn't a religion, although you can make it one if you wish. Pantheists can even be Christian. I look around me and see nature as...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.