Is population control the only real answer to survival as a species?

Question

While everyone's focus is on climate change, the question of reducing the human population is been forgotten. Some scientist say 5 B is sustainable in the short term (we are now past 6 B) but we need to fget it down to 3 B in the next 200 years. How could we do this without massive suffering?

And is the human capacity for self delusion infinite?

Answer 1

Unfortunately, many people have their heads in the sand about population growth. More unfortunately, the pressures human population will place on the environement in the coming years will result in suffering. While population growth in the developed nations of Europe and North America will be unchanging, the developing world's population will skyrocket.

Climate change, caused by humans, is expected to change weather patterns, so that rainfall goes up, or down from the current normal. Famine and disease are expected to increase. As the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melts the seas will rise. The question remains how much, but cities along the oceans will be lost to the sea.

As long as our leaders refuse to acknowledge that birth control is the single most important means to helping people overcome poverty the world will continue to slip into desolation. Bleak? You bet it is. Check out the two sites below. The second is about Thomas Malthus. Though much criticised, his theories are not without merit.

Answer 2

Yes, I am a believer that population reduction is the only real long-term solution. It is said that America uses up 50% of the world's entire production of resources every year. If this is true, then the world is only able to properly support twice the American population. The current 6 billion people on earth are already making a big enough impact on the world and we are finally witnessing the effects of our presence (is it too late for us to change) in the wierd climatic changes and massive extinction of animals the world over. 2007 will be the year Earth talks back, with El Nino and global warming wreaking havoc. A reduction in population through contraceptives and family planning will be a GOOD thing. Families the world over a suffering because they have too many mouths to feed. I think to assume technology will find a solution and keep growing out of control will lead to infinitely greater suffering and damage in the future.

Answer 3

Well I hadn't foregotten about it, but it doesn't exactly bring in the votes for the politicians does it. There will be more massive suffering in my opinion if we don't reduce it. Some people simply have too many children. 2 or maybe three is surely enough. There are far too many people on the planet, but our leaders believe that we need growth for the community to prosper, thats true as far as economic development goes e.g. building new homes, more industry, more jobs more money. I'm sure though if they really got their heads together and thought about it properly they could come up with a better solution. I don't know exactly what that is, but I'm not a world leader either. Perhaps they could try helping individuals to become more self sufficient, and perhaps a little less greedy.

Answer 4

Yes, it is. People continue to ignore the fact that population growth is exponential. The issue is not only of food, but clean water, energy, shelter and employment for the masses.

Answer 5

in case you want to stay in a society with others, then you particularly enter right into a "social settlement" that is how rules strengthen. your individual rights to do what you want, once you want, end the place they interfere upon yet another's rights. You lose those rights once you violate the social settlement, the have faith that society places upon you to act interior those barriers (the regulation). In tribal, or nomadic societies, different mores and social norms, like non secular ideals and/or traditions place those comparable regulations on human beings. in case you want to stay on your individual, you're nonetheless certain via the guidelines of nature. as a manner to consume, you're able to desire to seek. you won't be able to in basic terms laze around all day given which you will starve. We each and each make a contribution something to society in substitute for with the flexibility to stay in relative protection, with cutting-edge conveniences, and get admission to to care (hospitals) that others make a contribution to our earnings. we'd desire to regulate ourselves, or possibility the end results of violating the time-honored public have faith (detention center). We additionally administration ourselves interior the barriers of our relatives duties, and non secular conventions. no person is particularly "unfastened" - that is in basic terms a physique of innovations.

Answer 6

No, this is ridiculous. We have 6B now, and enough food for everyone. (It may not be distributed evenly, but we have enough food.) I'm pretty confident that we'll never reach the carrying capacity of the world. As the third world enters the industrial age, fewer people will be born, and we'll eventually reach equilibrium.

Answer 7

No...unless you're volunteering?