Is population reduction the solution to environmental problems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter out of whack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human population
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether reducing human population could effectively address environmental issues such as pollution, resource depletion, and species extinction. Participants argue that the question lacks precision, as the effects of population reduction can vary significantly based on geographic and socioeconomic factors. While some suggest that a smaller population could improve living standards and environmental stewardship, others highlight the complexities of implementing such a strategy, including moral dilemmas related to aid and family planning. The conversation emphasizes that overpopulation is a root cause of many problems, but simply reducing numbers may not be a comprehensive solution. Ultimately, the topic warrants more nuanced discussion rather than simplistic answers.

Reducing human population would be effective.

  • Yes, of course.

    Votes: 28 50.9%
  • Probably.

    Votes: 8 14.5%
  • Maybe, maybe not.

    Votes: 10 18.2%
  • Probably not.

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • No, of course not.

    Votes: 7 12.7%

  • Total voters
    55
  • #51
Bill Gates on Ted Talk : Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!

Bill Gates talk about energy and climate.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html


Bill Gates calls for population reduction, for a Malthusian population manipulation.

What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Which reminds me. People that want to own a dog should be forced to own acreage to the tune of 5 acres per 3 ounces of the weight of the dog. This way I don't have to watch them scooping up after their little precious. Hell, we could really be a bunch of little Hitlers if we wanted, eh.
 
  • #53
baywax said:
Which reminds me. People that want to own a dog should be forced to own acreage to the tune of 5 acres per 3 ounces of the weight of the dog. This way I don't have to watch them scooping up after their little precious. Hell, we could really be a bunch of little Hitlers if we wanted, eh.
That doesn't make any sense. If you were making a joke, I apologize, I didn't get it.

So, do you believe that the number of humans on this planet and the rate at which the population is increasing is not a problem? If so, why? And do you have any studies to show that the increasing world population is not negatively impacting our environment?

I've posted links to studies that show it to be having devastating effects.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
That doesn't make any sense. If you were making a joke, I apologize, I didn't get it.

So, do you believe that the number of humans on this planet and the rate at which the population is increasing is not a problem? If so, why? And do you have any studies to show that the increasing world population is not negatively impacting our environment?

I've posted links to studies that show it to be having devastating effects.

I have a feeling the population will decrease without humans purposefully limiting births, increasing deaths etc...

The answer to your question is in the studies you have... our population will be decreased by our devastated environment. We don't last long without clean water, in high radiation from the sun or underwater from rising sea levels. We don't live well when every human is making plans for themselves and screwing everyone else... but that has always been the human way... on average. As far as the planet goes, it will survive either as a rock or a home to some examples of life.

As a devil's advocate I will link you to on study that questions the relationship between population growth and a deteriorating quality of environment...

A complex problem

While the global and local list of environmental problems is long and growing, it's difficult to be certain of the extent to which population growth is a contributing factor. For example, land degradation in Australia is a major concern. Rabbits are a major cause of land degradation in some regions of the country, yet they were introduced to the country by just one person. This is a problem of too many rabbits, not too many people.

Clearly, the relationship between the environment and population is complex. To explore it further, we need first to look at population growth.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/087/087print.htm

The one person to too many rabbits idea can be seen in reverse where we see a larger population creating its higher standard of living which in turn takes into account the environment... as a paramount issue. For instance, the solar energy project in Northern Africa, by 2016, is capable of generating enough energy for the entire world economy. This would greatly reduce stress on the environment... and its an idea bourn of humans from a growing population... in Germany. So, you can see that from the bowels of the "evil" large population, comes ideas that actually reduce stress on the environment... and things may be surprising.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/solar-power-europe-africa

Its just too difficult to stay away from racism when discussing over population. Its becomes obvious that the northern, caucasian sub-species is dwindling in size while the billion Indian and the 1.4 billion Asian populations are growing at an alarming rate. So, when you talk about imposing a limit on births or a limit on any individual pursuit... you have to ask yourself how you would feel under those same circumstances. I know I would probably revolt and move to Canada... or the US where I could have all the children I want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top