If we don't limit population growth, isn't being environment just a waste of time?

I wish you were wrong. Yes, population growth is a huge problem.

 

I can't. I see no point to contest.
I also have no asnwer as to how you would implent such a plan other than mass guilt trips to the whole world. Best you can do is have child tax credits stop at 1 child, but I don't think many people have kids strictly for the tax break. I know I didn't.

 

Yes. It's all about unrestrained population growth. It boils down to that.

 

Keep in mind that various effects of national/societal development lead to a reduction in national birth rate. If those currently positive effects are combined with a reduction in consumption then we may have a reasonable chance at creating a sustainable society. The most important of these factors is empowerment of women, social security, and a reduction in infant/child mortality rates.

High birth rates and high consumption are obviously the worst possible causes of environmental degradation but it's not always claer cut as it seems it's definately not practicle to pose bans on limits on children creation.

 

Given a choice between a guilt trip and starvation, which would
you choose?
.
If the curve can't naturally crest soon enough, the volunteer
euthanasia centers will have to open up.
.
_H*

 

Realize that modern birth control has only been around for less than a couple of generations. From when I was born to now, the size of american families has really decreased. As countries economic status improves, the birth rates go down. (Japan is on the down side of the peak.) China's program has worked to some extent. Those that can choose how many children to have rarely choose to have as many as possible.

It may not be as bleak as an initial look would indicate.

 

I hate to get involved but the typical American family has 1-3 kids. Now, Put into consideration all of the immigration that is going on plus all the ethics that come with immigration and hmongs, Hispanics, Mexicans and ect like to have a lot of kids. Generally they have like 7-10 kids per family.

I don't know... I tend to think that people in general worry way to much these days about something out of there control.

 

Until those families make it into the U.S. those 7-10 kids (slightly exagerated) do much less environmental damage than the average 1-3 U.S. children. Once in the U.S. they may increase their consumption rates due to lifestyle changes and create more pollution and exacerbate resource scarcity which is why consumption should be seriously taken into account. Population is only 1 part of the environmental impact equation.

If we didn't worry about these things we'd end up like every other large civilization throughout history, collapsed and in the history books. We are trying to avoid that fate.

 

Like China? LOL

 

What do you mean.

 

Over populated....

 

Global warming and disease will take care of the world's overpopulation. Nature always seems to find a way to balance things out.

Perhaps we'll have the equivalent of the Black Plague to take us down 50-75%.

 

Ahh, yeah and destroying their environment to the detriment of all. Yup Haha

Godiva, I believe that with over 6 billion people on this planet we would need an even larger bottle-neck to reduce the population enough so that the rule of exponents doesn't replace our numbers too quickly. If we only dropped to 3.25 billion people we could recover to 2008 levels within 20yrs or less unless the whole world is cast back into the dark ages because we are so overspecialized that those people who survive cannot fend for themselves. lol

 

Historically, an increasing standard of living very reliably leads to a drop in birth rate. Population is on course to peak around nine billion in the second half of this century. Supporting nine billion people at a Western standard of living even with a European/Japanese standard of energy efficiency will require increasing world energy consumption by a factor of at least four. That will be impossible using fossil fuels: if we try, it will likely create a global warming disaster, and in any case at that rate all known fossil fuels would run out within a hundred years or so.

Economic and environmental justice both require replacing fossil energy sources with all available non-fossil energy sources including nuclear, wind, and Solar, ASAP. There is still a little time to choose to do this in an orderly fashion.

 

If anyone wants to read a really good book about this, get a copy of "Plan B 3.0" by Lester Brown. Really interesting stuff. He must have a Prius, too, because he mentions it several times in the book.