Is this smoking thing and hiv going to solve our alleged population problem?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070702/india_nm/india282814

Answer 1

Well, smoking kills overtime..won't most of these people have their offspring? AIDS is also curable..suppose we find a cure before this time?

Answer 2

It might buy us some time, but it won't solve the underlying issue.

¶Ultimately killing people off through disease is only a stopgap solution. The only real way to keep population growth within maintainable limits is to snap people out of the ancient feeling of "I must have more children".

¶I think education is the surest way to do it, teaching people that the fundamental state of the world has changed in such a way that the *quantity* of people no longer matters as much as the *quality* of people.

¶It used to be that people could only survive by having as many children as possible, because they could do more work, and you had insurance that your genes would be passed on even if some of your kids died (As they most likely would). Nowadays, people can actually get farther in life by concentrating all their resources on giving one or two high-quality kids all the advantages possible. It is only once the world recognizes that fundamental shift, and moves away from their "more is better" instincts that we will be able to bring population under control.

Answer 3

No it won't.  Our population problems won't be resolved until people start have 1 child or less per already existing person.  I'm doing my part by having 0 children.

Answer 4

Actually the pollution from your car and obesity are going to handle our "population" problem quite nicely.  Automobile emissions cause ten times more cancer than cigarette smoke.  One automobile emits more cancer causing pollutants into the air in one day than a smoker does in one year.  And, obesity, not HIV, is the number one big health care crisis.  The anti-smoking campaign is a well-funded, deeply swallowed ruse to get the public's mind off the damage caused by petroleum pollutants.  Obesity is a huge health-care epidemic caused by well-funded gluttony campaigns for the benefit of the food industry.  Pharmaceutical companies, usually associated with that food industry, then reap unbelievable profit from the subsequent disease.  It's a form of animal husbandry, not population "control".  In nature, parasites tend to keep their hosts alive.

Answer 5

As for smoking, absolutely not since the vast majority of deaths from smoking occur after the afflicted person has already reproduced.

As for AIDs, again no.  History has shown that disease doesn't have a permanent affect on human population, only a temporary one.  Even accounting for AIDS-related mortality, sub-Saharan Africa’s population is projected to grow from 767 million in 2006 to 1.7 billion in 2050.

Only a sustained reduction in reproduction will result in a long term affect on human population.

Answer 6

Not likely.  Smoking only kills 5.4 million people a year worldwide, according to that article.  That's 0.9% of the population (about 6 billion people).  World War II killed about 3.7% of the populations of the countries that were involved, including civilians, the military, and the victims of the Holocaust.  World War I killed about 2.1% of the populations of the countries involved.  Yet, from 1900 to 1050, Europe's population increased by 34% and North America's more than doubled.  Plus, the worldwide birth rate is currently 20 births/1000 people, and the death rate is 9/1000.  I think we're going to have to do a bit more to control our population growth than sit back, light up a cigarette, and avoid the condoms.