- #1
out of whack
- 436
- 0
Here is the full question:
Reducing human population, disregarding the difficulty, would be the most effective way to:
- reduce pollution (air, water, soil, noise...) and
- avoid depleting natural resources (fish stocks, oil, forests...) and
- prevent extinction of living species, as well as
- control world hunger, and on top of that
- increase average standard of living.
Let's see what a typical, forumist, poll-participating physicist would think...EDIT: I meant to post this in "Social Science" and goofed. Can someone more it please? Thanks!
Reducing human population, disregarding the difficulty, would be the most effective way to:
- reduce pollution (air, water, soil, noise...) and
- avoid depleting natural resources (fish stocks, oil, forests...) and
- prevent extinction of living species, as well as
- control world hunger, and on top of that
- increase average standard of living.
Let's see what a typical, forumist, poll-participating physicist would think...EDIT: I meant to post this in "Social Science" and goofed. Can someone more it please? Thanks!
Last edited: