Given the extent of environmental collapse thus far, isn't mandatory population control inevitable?

Question

Isn't the chief problem for the environment, overpopulation? Won't most nations have to adopt controls at some point? A clear, calm perspective is appreciated as are links to data supporting your position.

Answer 1

This will not happen in the foreseeable future. Any serious discussion of mandatory controls are at least 30 years out, by my guess. Something catastrophic would have to occur, or a decades-long trend demonstrating a significant reduction in the quality of life. Bottom line, nobody is miserable enough yet, there still seems to be plenty of everything as far as many people are concerned, and people pretty much need reality rubbed in their faces before they cry "uncle!"

I think you're right, it is inevitable unless self-correcting measures are enacted gradually in the next decade throughout the world.

Answer 2

the carrying capacity of any ecosytem controls population. The carrying capacity of the earths future can only be known... in the future, due to unknown variables such as climate and farming changes

that being said, at some point the earth will not be able to support an increased population and the population will probabaly even crash

i think spending our time on ways to improve efficiency and educating areas where popualtion growth is excessive such as some areas of Africa, and Asia are reasonable goals for our life times

generally affluent areas begin to self limit population, whereas extremely poor areas have a high mortality rate. Some governments do and will intervene ( China limits while russia promotes growth)

Answer 3

i have no links, but china already has population control. two children is the limit. our little friends the germs and viruses are another form of population control. the more populous an area the higher the chance for mass outbreaks of disease as you see in many third world countries. i'm sure this will have to be addressed at some point but it will be something that is a violation of our rights. if the government can tell me how many children i'm allowed to have, who's to say where to stop. it's a slippery slope.

Answer 4

Thank-you! I have been saying this forever. Go for quality not quanity. The earth could keep up with all the environmental problems IF it wasn't over burdened. That is why the catastrophic events are helpful...no one is singled out...just a random thing to keep population in check (Mother Nature fighting back)

I am not pessimistic...just realistic. No more than two per family....just replace yourself...and it is OK if you don't want to have kids...you can share in different ways to help friends/relatives raise theirs. Should be no stigma if you chose not to have children. The idiots that have multiple children and are not responsible for them really bother me. If you can't take care of yourself ...you have no business pretending you can raise children.

Whew! hit a nerve with me...time to get off my soapbox! Thanks!

Answer 5

No. While the number of people may sound big, it's no where close to being so.

The entire population of the world can fit into Jacksonville, FL city limits. (Granted, Jax is a big city, and the people are standing close, but still...)

The entire population can be allocated 4 to a home on an 1/4 acre parcel of land and take up just 7 Western States. This would leave the rest of the world to farm.

Man is still insignificant. Our population could triple without any harmful effect.

Answer 6

Already in place in China.