How should we reduce the population?

I'm absolutely horrified by what you're suggesting. Why should we reduce the population anyway? Are you aware that economically developped countries have less and less babies born every year, so that their population is already reducing? Do you realise that simply by developping, the population will go down? Did you also know that it has been estimated that the Earth's carrying capacity is 10 billion people, and that the population is expected to stabilise at 8 billion? But most importantly, do you not know of the one child policy that exists in China (although it was been getting more lenient) and of all the problems that come with it? When you suggest sterilising, are you aware that such compaigns have been run and FORCED on men in India? Do you not know that today, this still happens as the poorest women are paid a meager sum to be sterilised in the most terrible conditions? How would you feel if you had to sit in a packed Indian train (if not on the roof) for four hours before some random doctor in an unclean clinic cuts you open without giving any anaesthetic, an operation that makes approximately 15 minutes before letting you go home straight after? What you suggest is inhumane treatment, imagine your only child dying, and there you are, already sterilised? Just thinking about these mesures makes me ill, when it could be as easy as helping them develop!

It would help to outlaw all of the new fertility technologies. If nater says that a woman can't conceive or carry a child to term, we don't need to be helping them do an end run. I've also thought of something like a contraceptive added to all the water supplis for a year or two, but I'm sure that will never happen. Just a note. I'm seventy, and it's my right to decide whether I should get health care. I'm not even sure what this has to do with reducing population. I'm certainly not having any more children.

The earth is hardly overpopulated that is media hype and myth. We have lots of land everywhere. Only certain nations are overpopulated, China, Korea, India for example. There are vast amounts of land all over the world were there is no human poplulation or it is small. Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, Even my state of Washington. Russia, Canada to mention a couple of nations, Australia and even Africa have a lot of unpopulated land. As for enviroment destruction God can restore and recreate any and all things. Why should those of us over 65 be denied health care that is selfish on your part. We paid our dues to society and were productive. Why should people be reduced to 1 child I totally disagree with you.

That is a bit drastic. Stop treatment for the over 65's? That would be hard to look your parents' in the eye and say sorry, you no longer qualify for health benefits. I am 10 years away from that age. People that have worked all their lives, or the majority of their lives, have earned the right to health benefits. Why don't we better educate the population about the cause and effect of having large families and not being able to care for them. The third world countries need to be educated as they tend to start families at a very young age and just keep having babies. Pouring money into countries that can not afford their population is not helping them. It is just making the problem worse. Do I have the answer? No, but then neither do the politicians.

What you are suggesting amounts to genocide. Hitler tried it, Bush has been accused of it by nearly every wacko that can type, and throughout history there have been incidents of entire cultures being erased. Since I am disabled, according to your plan for a Utopian world then you now consider me to be of no more use. Thank you very much. Maybe we should start by eliminating those who seem to care for no one other than their own selfish beliefs. The earth is self renewing, and can and does replenish itself. Perhaps we should limit the amount of education a person can receive, because it has been my observation that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to come up with a bone headed idea such as this. I recently was called an Elitist by someone from your country simply because I am an American and they didn't like my views, and yet you post this which to me is about as Elitist as a person can get. How can you possibly justify postulating such an idea? I guess a person cannot be environmentally conscious and a humanitarian at the same time. Pardon me while I go thin out the neighborhood in order to save the planet.

Its a private right to decide on how many child a person can have. Restricting it to 1 is not a good thing. Stopping health treatment for older people also cannot be accepted. They have the right to live in this world.

Instead of reducing the population how about colonizing the moon or mars or other planets that can be terraformed or made habitable? I find your thinking backwards, we should be focusing on expanding our territories now reducing our race.

I don't see you offering yourself or others with your opinion on the sacrifical alter of reducing the population why not start with yourselves before offering or suggesting eveyone else start making sacrifices for the betterment of the worlds population?

I'm going to have to come up with some good ideas to counter these, I can see. I definitely strongly oppose all 3 of these options, although I am very much aware that we need to reduce the earth's population. About health insurance for those over 65: first of all, many people work well into their 70's and are contributing to society. Even if retired, is that any way to treat our aging population? They are human beings who have contributed for many years. Is it even humane to leave them to die?? My parents are 75 and 81, and the thought of this suggestion makes me ill. Do you want your kids to be without their parents when you turn 65 if you have a health problem? Women have a right to decide how many children they want to have. I chose not to have any. How many did you have? If you have more than 1, how would you feel if you had been told after 1 that you were not allowed to have another? Women in the future will feel no different. I also disagree with the attitude that less educated people should not have children. Who decides whether or not someone is educated or smart enough to have children? There are some educated and wealthy couples who are horrible parents, and there are plenty of uneducated people who are great parents. The answers to the environmental problems and population control cannot lie in this inhumane acts. First of all, if birth control were readily available at no cost to women in many developing areas, the number of children born would automatically decrease. The entire population has to actively participate in conservation of energy. Everyone should ask themselves a few of these questions: Do you drive an economy car or an SUV? Think of the gas used. Do you carpool? Do you turn lights off when you're not in the room? Are you willing to have 1 car per family, and not an SUV or truck? Would you consider an electric car? What about the government's responsibility in this? Are you actively lobbying for environmental conservation with your congressmen? These are all starts, but they may make an impact. Taking away human rights and treating people as if they are living in a concentration camp seems to be a bit drastic.

Don't worry about it. Nature has its own way of reducing population. Have you ever seen a book called "The Limits To Growth"? This was published in 1972 and was a detailed study the world's resources (as known at that time) and offered several computer models forecasting the future development of five factors. Population increase, agricultural production, nonrenewable resource depletion, industrial output and pollution generation. Data on these factors was fed into a global computer model which was then used to test various assumptions. The standard model that they produced showed that if no changes are made, then population would peak at about 12 billion about 2050 and then decline rapidly. The model showed that the decline was caused by the collapse of the industrial and agricultural infrastructure due to increasing levels of pollution and depletion of non - renewable resources. They tested several different scenarios, including radical birth control, but all showed collapse from one cause or another before the end of this century. Needless to say, there is a great deal of controversy about the conclusions in the book. But it does make thought - provoking reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltusian_catastrophe for other relevant information. There are also a lot of other links on these two pages that I have not explored.

That is so ridiculous! first of all most educated people as you say don't raise their own children, Daycare does, and no would ever allow sterilzing woman after one child , Most enviormental damage cannot be linked to People for sure in the first place! Do some research. Our country sill hs alot of wide open space, if you do not believe me come to Arizona where you can drive over 100 miles without seeing a store or person! Also people who are 65 paid all their lives for health treatment, they paid for all the luxuries that we have through their taxes and maybe if we treated them better and listened to them maybe we could solve the worlds problems without the drastic and ridiculous answers you have posted! I think it is todays youth that don't appreciate the fact that other people were here long before them and have earned their say. Just because you feel one way doesn't mean anyone else does!

Okay, so I work hard all my life and instead of retiring at age 65, my reward is to be left to rot in disease? Yeah, sure, that's a great idea and I'm pretty sure you'll change your mind quick on that one once you start getting closer to retirement. Sterilize the women? What about the men? How about vasectormies all around eh? Not! It is not simply overpopulation that is the cause of environmental destruction my dear. It is our irresponsible use of resources and mass production and the polution from the industrial world. It is our poor personal choices. We would be much better off by passing laws (which are actually enforced) requiring people to reduce, reuse and recycle. We would be better off making it less easy for people to drive one to a car and make it more rewarding to carpool or use public transportation and easier for people to ride a bike or walk to work with viable bike and walking paths away from mainstream traffic where they get hurt or killed. Eliminate the production of aerosol cans for unnecessary things like hairspray (which can easily be done using a pump spray) and other such items. You are drastically oversimplifying the problem by making overpopulation the main cause. What we really need to do is make each person accountable for their role in preserving the environment.

Increasing population is a big problem but the solutions you have suggested are very inhuman. Even if you want to avoid emotional thoughts it is logical that old ill people can spread deseases. And since old people have weak immune so they should be treated well. Their experience can guide the new generation so they deserve to live a healthy life. Forcing a woman to limit to have one child is good but the same rule should be forced to a man. Less educated people are not necessarily bad parents. Rather they may be better parents as they may wish to give their child/ren all those facilities what they missed. The best solution is to have one child and at older age. If someone has child at the age of 20 and his/her grandchild is born when he/she is 40 then sixth generation will arrive within 100 years. But if someone gets child at the age of 30 and so the next generation then only 4th generation will come within 100 year. So the best solution is : HAVE ONE CHILD AND HAVE CHILD NOT AT VERY YOUNG AGE.

Not only is that illegal, cruel, unhumane,mean and stupid it also makes no sense. God gave us animals to do as we please with them. Why harm every person on earth for a few animals? Also if uneducated people couldnt have children then you wouldn't be able to ahve any kids.

And just how do you define less educated persons? Are they ones that didn't finish school? Are they the ones that just didn't take the time to learn something? I know many SMART people who didn't finish school, because they got jobs to help out their parents, because their parents became disabled in some manner and could not work. They also went on after their parent's passing to complete where they had left off and have tried to keep up with this ever changing world. Stop health treatments to those over 65? What in the world are you thinking? For crying out loud how would you feel if you had to watch someone in your family decline drastically when you know that the doctors could very well help them? My grandmother is 66 and in no way would I sit around just watching her die. You must truely be heartless with stating such a thing. I care about the health of the planet as anyone else does, but would never make people do things against their will. Making women or men go through a sterilization process would be taking away their right to have any sized family they want. Processes have already been started to help lessen the effects of global warming on the planet and just like what it took to create global warming, it will take just as much time to reverse the effects of global warming. So I think really what most are lacking is patience.

What a great duscussion Michelle, - thanks for starting it. Well, I know I probably sound like somone out of Hitler's Third Reich, but I do think their should be more stringent birth control methods, to try and cut down the ever growing population. There are so many kids being born into this world, with no hope of a better life than their parents have. They will live. and probably die in poverty, having produced many more children pf their own before they do so. Having sdaid that, as CremeCheese said, I would not want to be theone who ade the ultimate decision on who should reproduce, and who shouldn't, though also lkke her, there are plenty of feckless, uncaring people out there I would happily sterilise myself! About the old people, - well many of them have worked hard al their ives to pay for the medical treatment they are now receiving, and I think they are entitled to the best care in their twilight years. Also, ot many of them drive around in gas-guzzling cars, or damage their envirnoent in any way."Culling" them at a certain age would be like that old movie "Logan's Run", where people were killed off at 40. I couldn't in all conscience agree to that.

I guess education is the only solution such problem,,....unless and untill u remove illiteracy from the minds of people regarding the hazards of over -population...we cannot reduce its....spreading awareness among the people is the only best possible way....

We could make homosexuality more acceptable lol.

I think maybe the 'child-free' movement will pick up some speed as one means of natural balance. People are also reproducing later and later in developed countries, minimizing the number of kids they have. One of the most important things we can do is keep elective abortions legal... could you imagine what the population would be if all the 'unborn' were living on this planet? I suggest someone go have a talk with the Catholics...

There has been some fiction written describing just those type of 'solutions'. Just who would be the judge of who should/should not be allowed to procreate? MOST of the presidents of the USA, many,many diplomats would fall into the banned age group, as would doctors,teacher, and many other needed groups. Better in my opinion is to teach better use of our resourses. Better efficency in crop production, ect. Though how you are going to get any of that paid for is beyond me.