Is reducing the worlds population the best way to go green ? ?

Question

I honestly belive that a 80% reduction in Earths human population would be good for this planet.

Answer 1

Well of course it will help.... but it's not going to happen without one h**l of a natural disaster.  We have to work with what we've got - it can be done!

Answer 2

every population experiences exponential growth followed by some sort of crash. humans are still on the upswing but for how much longer i don't know.

there is gonna be a crash soon be it by disease, shortages of food water energy or simply war. its gonna happen even with all of our tools to prevent it.

it ain't gonna be pretty either

Answer 3

So do I. But it's a bit late for that, I think.

Answer 4

Wouldn't that really depend on who the remaining 20% are.

Answer 5

How about esponsible s*x. If we can't stop screwingf like rabbits, then maybe we could find a more effective birth control.

No, seriously, we need to start taking a little more personal responsibility for what we leave behind. Killing people with chemicals, chem trails, upper atmospheric resonanse technology, bio weapons, dna spescific organisms that's designed to make a persons own immune system attack it's own body, leaving no clue to bcause of death, poisonous foods, mercury fiiled vaccines for babies,injecting retarded children with serum from ground up monkey kidneys etc,( Staten Island-1957), among other things, are not civilized ways of reducing the population.

Answer 6

i think that to, and we are not letting that happen, as a race.we are making vaccinations to almost every disease known and we are being generally waste full when it comes to everything.maybe nukes are a good thing........

Answer 7

Yes, especially in the developed world.  Many people like to blame things on 3rd world countries because women have 5-7 babies a piece, but in reality, their footprint is negligible compared to a baby born in the USA.  Unfortunately, too many people are ignorant about the dangers of rapid population growth.  They somehow think it's okay to have children above replacement levels (more than 2 children per woman) because their genes are so superior, or something like that.

There's no need to explain why more people = more environmental problems.  It's so obvious and the people who don't believe so will just have to learn the hard way.

I have one child and am planning another one in a couple of years.  But after that, we are DONE.  My husband is getting a vasectomy as soon as our second (and last) child is born.  We are doing this because we a) aren't so narcissistic to think that the world "needs" excessive babies with our DNA and b) care very, very much for our children's future and want to procreate responsibly.

Answer 8

20% of the world's population consume 80% of it's resources. If the other 80% were to die the last 20% of the resource's  would be left for us but we would still kill the earth because every one of us even myself are nothing but a bunch of overindulgent self centered narcissist's  

Answer 9

We can have a similar affect by reducing waste. At some point if we continue on our current path the world will become so polluted or we will suffer from water or food shortages that the population will begin to decrease. China recognized their need to control their population over 20 years ago and have prevented over 1 billion births. They understand that resources are finite and China would not have been able to support an additional billion people.

It is possible some countries may make the same choice, I can't see it ever working here in America.