Is reducing the human population a solution for environmental destruction?

Question

I saw an argument from a woman who felt that a possible solution for stopping the amount of destruction humanity does to the Earth was to reduce the human population. She suggested that health care stop being provided for people over 65, or all woman be sterilized after giving birth to one child, or even preventing "less educated" couples from having children at all. You can read it at
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/761760.aspx?ref=akuseru

Do you think that this is a practical solution? I don't. Many of the corporations and factories that cause much of the environmental destruction will continue to run even if the population is drastically reduced.

Answer 1

China's one-child policy is basically the same thing as you are talking about. It may work in China, but every child has the right to life, and every person has a right to health care. The woman is wrong.

Answer 2

No it's not a practical solution. What's the point in improving the environment if most of the people on earth aren't going to be around to enjoy it because you just killed them? Plus, it's not such a simple thing to just tell everyone to stop having kids and then the population will reduce. You'll end up with a lot of old people who need to be supported by a small number of working young people. So I guess that woman would tell you to just let those old people die, but think about it. The massive human suffering would totally defeat the purpose of making the world a better place to live by cleaning up the environment.

And the thing about preventing 'less educated' couples from breeding is just stupid. Seriously. Just wow.

Answer 3

If you were to eliminate 3 to 4 billion people overnight the effects would not be immediate but would be in the right direction. Human activity causes environmental destruction, so eliminate the people and you eliminate the destruction. Corporations that cause much of the environmental destruction will go out of business eventually because with most of their market destroyed their income will cease and they will be forced to close down, ending the destructive effects of their activity upon the environment.

The surest way to end global warming and destruction of the environment is to drastically reduce the human population.

Note: China's "one-child" policy is heading that country for disaster. It is the preference of Chinese couples to have a son, so the effects of this government policy are that most female fetuses are aborted, resulting in a present gender balance as high as 130 males per 100 females in some areas. This means a great many young Chinese men will never be able to get married or have a woman. The chances of a social revolution and upheaval because of this policy are very great indeed and may wipe out China's future as a major power.

Answer 4

Reducing human population is an extremely practical solution to reducing environmental resources. There's only so many resources available on this planet, and if mankind is taking up more and more of them, there'll be less and less for other life forms--it's that simple. I can't say a support this woman's plan, however. Two key things we can do to slow environmental destruction is 1). reduce global poverty 2). provide education to women (this is a major factor is lowering birth rates)

Answer 5

This is a question of morals ... said that I don't mean to be callous but the fact is yes we all do have the right to life , and yes over population is destroying our self's , so we are in a catch 22 , the right to live and the right of all the world to sustain our self's or not ??. 200 years ago people died more frequently because we did not have the medical technology , so the earth population could be more at balance with births compared to deaths , since the medical revolution the balanced has been tilted to live longer and the misguided catholic rhetoric in the third world to no to use contraceptives consequently is the third world countries that are in despair of un able to survive like we do here . So to answer your question , yes over population is destroying our self's , because of the right of every one to have a life ....

Answer 6

people useand need land,so more and more is being changed to accomodate human growth and devellopment

the necessary biomass ,which permits life as we know it, is disappearing.

We must learn to live with the trees without them, we are vulnerable to the forces from space,

leaving us to burn during the day or freeze in the nights. Without water , food and air.

Eco-systems are being exchanged for desserts , concrete or roads.

An environmentally destructive wave is in motion, caused by expanding populations.

World population has doubled in the last 50 years exceeding the growth of 4 million years (since we became homo sapiens).
To satisfy the growing demand farmers are cultivating unstable lands , too steep or dry to be sustainable.


Mono cultures ,aided by chemicals Exhaust and pollutes the soil .
Adding to this the effects of overgrazing has resulted in large scale desertification.

Each year billions of tons of topsoil are blown or washed away by storms.

Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people,

are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.

This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people.

Africa and Asia are loosing millions of people to AIDS , many of whom were food producers.

The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise. .

Answer 7

Even allowing the extreme measures suggested, we are still going to have a population in excess of 5 billion people for at least the next 500 years. We need to address sustainable civilization considerably sooner than population control can help.
Prudent population measures voluntarily undertaken seem to be capable of limiting our population to a peak around 11 billion, slowly declining after 2150 or so. That's a problem that is limited, if not entirely solved. We have done absolutely nothing as yet to counter growth in civilization's greenhouse gas output.

Answer 8

Well, it's an extreme measure, but I do agree the population is a key factor. In 1840 the wolrds poulation was 1 billion, in 2000 it was 6 billion. In the past 200 years the carbon levels in the worlds air have soared more that 200x's previous levels. Yes, something must be done, but how?

Answer 9

By natural means but not by criminal humans.

Answer 10

Practical? No

Should we stop volcanoes from erupting?