Is it wise to try to continue to support a world pop of 6.75 B people?

Question

Or would the world be better off with a declining pop, till we get back to 2-3B.

what i suggest is that the twin storms of progressive declining oil availability and increasing climate disruption will cause the pop to decline, primarily due to resulting declining food production. I am suggesting we want to recognize that inevitability and work to make a smooth transition. Who lives and who dies will likely be made by forces beyond our control to a large extent.

the "catastrophic worldwide outbreak" will be a rapid decline in food due to a decline in oil/natural gas. We are almost totally dependent on oil/gas for fertilizer, pesticides, transportation, medical supplies, food processing, refrig., etc.

Answer 1

This may sound mean and inhumane but our human species has seemed to stop evolving. Look at the natural world...the survival of the fittest is still at work in the animal kingdom. this way their population is still kept in check and only the strongest survive. In our human societies we have methods to maitain and keep the weak links around therefore the populations continue to rise

Answer 2

The world is already failing to support some of those 6.75 billion, and more to come as the climate changes.

But then, eventually, as the population drops significantly, carbon emissions will drop, and the correction will eventually occur without us.

The end of icecap snowmelt has reduced the flow of many rivers, cutting off fresh water from populations that built up depending on those water supplies.

Answer 3

Well, save some catastrophic worldwide outbreak, the world population will hit 10 billion around 2050. Some scientists say the world can support up to 12 billion... of course, in the past they said the world couldn't support more than 5 billion. So go figure.

Trends show that as countries develop, their birth rates go down. It is in developing countries that populations are growing fastest. What we need is a balanced development in other countries so that we can see worldwide birthrates go down, as they have been in Europe and Japan.

Answer 4

And how could you accomplish a population reduction of around 3 to 4 billion people?

Answer 5

Hasn't that same tired argument been used each time the world population has approached a new milestone?

People were crying doom when the world was approaching 3 billion too.

Answer 6

There is no wise choice here. Population control begs the question of who controls the population and who is allowed to live in the controlled world.

Answer 7

We need more and grander wars.

We can start with 1.61B followers of an ultra-violent fascist religion, often referred to as the "Religion of Peace"

Answer 8

Is it wise? Do we have any choice short of launching massive epidemics, wars, climate disasters on our own? Surely you aren't insinuating we can do these things....

Answer 9

We can't support it, but that doesnt mean its going to stop. The pop will increase to 9 billion by 2050. This is just stupid. I dunno whether if we're all going to die by 2100 ( This is exaggeration, Humanity wont survive till then) or something, but this is just ridiculous

Answer 10

Does this mean you are suicidal and are going top eliminate your children?