Reduce Global Woes: Population Down to 500M

[Jikx]

With all the talk of wind, solar power, the hydrogen economy, nuclear power and efficiency as ways of averting global warming, depletion of resources, has anyone contemplated simply reducing the amount of humans? Say, down to half a billlion?

Ditch the baby bonus', link aid to third world countries with free contraceptives, import their children with families to the "1st" world when we get old, mixed in with modest improvements in efficiency and CO2 reductions... sustainable?

 

[Jikx]

oops.. sorry, might be wrong forum :(

 

[Marijn]

And how exactly would you want to "cut down on humans".
If you're trying to do this within a reasonable time frame, it would result in one messed up world.
I expect you don't propose to start culling people?
Nevertheless it might work, but its near impossible to complete this in less than 1/2 centuries

 

[Jikx]

hahaha no not culling.. just no promotion of childbirth in developed countries (like the babybonus in australia) and contraception for developing countries, while allowing them to imigrate to offset the problems of the ageing popultion.. it would take many generations yes - it won't stop global warming right away, but within a hundred years. Too late?

Suppose the real question is how many people could the Earth support sustainably if everyone lived in the same living standard as western countries.

 

[Njorl]

The most industrialized nations are the only ones with shrinking populations. Developing nations, which have adopted modern technology but not yet culturally assimilated it are the ones with booming populations. When a technological worldview permeates their societies, they too will begin population shrinkage.

There is no great rush. Scientists who agree with anthropomorphic global warming hypothoses mostly agree that we are many decades away from any serious consequences. It is primarily celebrities and uneducated activists who believe that the sky is falling.

Njorl

 

[iansmith]

With all the talk of wind, solar power, the hydrogen economy, nuclear power and efficiency as ways of averting global warming, depletion of resources, has anyone contemplated simply reducing the amount of humans? Say, down to half a billlion?

Ditch the baby bonus', link aid to third world countries with free contraceptives, import their children with families to the "1st" world when we get old, mixed in with modest improvements in efficiency and CO2 reductions... sustainable?

The problem with reducing the population your taking about will need more than the contraceptives methoids and stopping the baby bonus. Efficiency improvements will also have to more than modest to achieve sustainability. We will run out of fossil fuel or the price will be come to high to be attain an economy of scale by the time the population decrease significantly.

Suppose the real question is how many people could the Earth support sustainably if everyone lived in the same living standard as western countries.

I don't think it will be a high number because westernized countries consume more (per capita) than developing or third world countries.

The most industrialized nations are the only ones with shrinking populations. Developing nations, which have adopted modern technology but not yet culturally assimilated it are the ones with booming populations. When a technological worldview permeates their societies, they too will begin population shrinkage.

You also will need a shift in economy system. In many developing countries, children = unemployement insurance and retirement pension. Also other countries also have an agricultural base economy which require an high labor input and modern technology cannot yet replace human. To most notable examples are the asian countries with their rice paddy. It is one of the reason why their population is was always higher than the western countries.