The world is grossly overpopulated?

Question

There are simply too many people. In the last 50 years, we have gained more people than were ever alive in the other four million years of homo sapiens! Obviously the earth cannot sustain a population of 6 billion people and growing, expected to reach 9 billion in the not too distant future.

Of course cruelty is a bad thing and all people are entitled to basic human rights, so I am, of course, in no way advocating genocide or mass murder or anything. Quite the opposite! What I am asking is this: how can we limit the population and bring it back to a healthy and sustainable level?

Answer 1

We can't. Nature will do that for us. You are going to see a huge rise in the number of fatal communicable diseases in the next century, as well as a rise in the number of large wars and famines that leave millions dead. These are the results of human overpopulation. It will be painful, but ultimately the problem will be taken for us, although in a manner that none of us would chose.

Answer 2

Overpopulation is the result of the absence of an enforced
child number limit, preferably 3. Some people will have 0
children or 1 child, so a child limit of 2 would actually cause the
population to decrease, whereas a child limit of 3 would keep
the population roughly constant. Enforcement requires forced
sterilization and forced abortion when necessary. However,
a person must be given the right to give up their own optional
children so as to increase an other specified person's optional
children, provided that they are not bribed and/or extorted to do
so.

Support for, or opposition to, population control, is the
result of the genes. People that support population control
have an innate desire to fix problems, whereas people that
oppose population control have an innate desire to cause
problems.

In places like Africa and India, where the people are very
opposed to population control, that opposition derives mostly
from self-centeredness. Such people are at least somewhat
pliable though, because one aspect of self-interest can be
exchanged for another. The greater threat comes from the
theocratic fanatics that oppose population control. Such
people desire to make as many offspring as possible, so
as to take over the world and impose a symbolic inefficient
theocratic form of government. In the process, they
strain the earth's land and resources with their offspring.

The only way to implement population control (meaning
artificial population control, as contrasted with the brutal
natural population control of famine and war, as a previous
answerer pointed out) is, paradoxically, for the population
control supporters to breed more, so as to spread the genes
of support for population control. Otherwise, only the
population control opponents will breed, and in so doing they
spread the genes of opposition to population control, thus
making the problem grow exponentially.

Answer 3

I would disagree that the earth cannot sustain us. The problem is that in some places it can't naturally so aid has to be given but because man is a social animal, that can be done and is done a lot. I agree that there is a point of balance somewhere but that will be sorted out naturally when the population can't sustain istself with food and water resources out there.

Of course, standard of living may drop dramatically for all but humanity will still grow just fine.

Answer 4

i don't think of that would paintings. the human beings that would decide for those tax incentives (the poorer classification) are often extra probable to have extra little ones with the aid of fact it potential extra money from the two the authorities or with different little ones to make a contribution. I do in simple terms like the thought replaced into proposed in Louisiana to pay poor women human beings to get their tubes tied and giving tax incentives to knowledgeable women human beings to have infants. it variety of feels like now the stupidest human beings breed the main. And no, i comprehend that not all poor human beings are stupid, yet there is a amazing dating between the two.

Answer 5

And they are FAT too -
(At least some are.)
It isn't overpopulated as much as unfair.
Greed and tyranny prevents more even distribution of assets.
(That is NOT to say socialism should be practiced, but free enterprise and better production, distribution and reward for production will help a lot -people must be rewarded for production.)
Irresponsible breeding by those who can't provide for their children is just wrong!
Education, wisdom and personal responsibility are key!

Answer 6

Control the population by educating the new generation about sex and having children. Kids are having kids these days. Why? Because the government is making them feel easy to raise children. Government provide them with food to keep their youngs and medicare. It should become mandatory for parents to prescribe their kids with birth control before they get married.

Answer 7

It's been found that the more productive a society is, the less children people tend to have. Look at rich people versus poor people -- rich people tend to have one or two kids, while poor people (who do not always have access to adequate birth control), tend to have more kids.

If you can strengthen the society through education and employment, then population tends to not proliferate as much.

Answer 8

Everyone should only have 2 children and then women should get their fallopian tubes tied. if they want more adopt the children who where left alone. if your over 80 give up you already lived long enough sorry but i have to say that.