Is 'population downsizing' the answere?

Question

every single day we hear about congestion, traffic, pollution, global warming, dissapearing rain forrests and all the rest and all those do gooders come on tv critisizing humanity simply for wanting a better life!!

it is fundamental character in all humans that we want a better life, to prosper and be better off and surely the answere can never be to replace your BMW 3 series or the latest, most comfy family car with a G-wizz and have your kids cramped in the back like sardines.

nobody seems to talk about the cause of the problem, the spiraling human population. if countries get together and agree to reduce their population size, lets say by 25% or so by 2050, simply through education and birth control with everybody taking part..would'nt that be a real solution?? would it not reduce global warming, congestion, housing problems and so on with every single person reaping the benefit?? I know the argument is that the economy will suffer (as productivity decrease) but thats not the case if all industrialized countries take part.

what do you think??

Answer 1

my geography teacher said this was in an exam he marked once. you know what one of the kids put for the answer? kick all the p*ki b*st*rds out.

Answer 2

I think you're right, downsizing is the answer, personally I'm only having 2 kids for this reason.

Answer 3

If this 'policy' of genocide is carried out, then it will result in the loss of the lower classes as they have little influence. The economy will collapse, which will leave the corrupt governments of the world with very few under their influences who are resentful of this 'neo-n**i eugenics' policy.

Answer 4

Whilst I agree that population levels are a problem, I am amused by the fact that you seem to equate having a better life with expensive cars. Hmmmm.....Interesting.

Until we stop trying to come up with ways to make people live longer and creating life via IVF (it never ceases to amaze me that we can do this whilst at the same time funding abortions! It's like throwing away homegrown vegetables only to spend a fortune on expensive GM veg) I find it very difficult to condemn people for having children. If you can afford them then why not. Would you be criticised for wanting to cure your illnesses and live a longer life?

Answer 5

It's looking that way after seeing newsnight go on about water wars last night. No idea how you start though unless you slap a chinese style embargo on kids or go for a spot of genocide, which seems a bit drastic.

Just a note to the person who's only gonna have two kids, how does that decrease population, yr just replacing you and yr mate that's sticking to the status quo ;)

Answer 6

You assume there is an answer.  I don't.  You accept there is a problem whereas I don't necessarily see it in those terms.

I believe we cannot stop the phenomenon of humanity fouling or consuming this planet to the extent it becomes unable to support humanity (and other species along the way).  I see that as a phenomenon rather than a problem ... a consequence of actions we cannot discontinue but could moderate.

Population reduction, like any other ameliorative action, should buy time.  It would not remove the cause or change the outcome.  We are not capable of living in an environmentally neutral way.

The hard question is whether we continue as we are and bring it all to a speedier conclusion or whether we prolong it over a long period of decline and deprivation.  Of course there are other options but let's assume it would be unacceptable to suddenly reduce the world population to a sustainble level, using stone tools and living as hunter-gatherers, without metals, education, healthcare or any of the trappings of 'civilisation'.  Even that would be questionable since we have eliminated so many of the species and so much of the natural environment early hunter-gatherers would have relied on.

Your suggestion of population reduction might scratch the surface.  That is not a bad thing, depending on your point of view.