World Population !!!

[Pete84]

i don't know if this subject has been done before but to quote david attenborough

"I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more"

this seems a perfectly logical statement to me but i am more than aware that it is a political hot potato for many. even the green party seem to shy away from the concept of population reduction.

surely though a bright,comfortable future for fewer people is preferable to the harsh,denuded existence that seems likely for us if population levels remain unchecked.

i realise that any attempt at curtailing something that people regard as an inalienable right will open up the 'mother of all' can of worms , but i really do feel that if we are to solve our environmental problems then this issue has to be put high up on the agenda.

with out a reduction in population i feel that the future will judge all our current efforts and actions to heal the environment as a 21st century nero fiddling while rome burns.

[nightshade]

The native population of this country has a falling birth rate (TV? ) this is being made up by immigrants
The real problem is all our agriculture globally is destroying the soil and will soon be unable to support the worlds population. China, Haiti, Niger and Syria along with parts of the American Wheat Belt are already in trouble with soil erosion or a total dependency on chemical fertilisers.
A country like China with a burgeoning economy and population and unable to feed itself, thats what starts wars.

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, it's obvious that no amount of waste reduction will have any effect if you don't reduce population growth. As nightshade notes, most western countries have falling birth rates - it seems to occur naturally when people are reasonably well fed, housed &c. Unfortunately in other parts of the world - particularly those dominated by religions and with high poverty - populations increase greatly. Only one country, I believe, has tried officially to encourage reduction or at least stabilisation of population. Elsewhere governments bow to religion and 'tradition' .....

[Fauna]

This amoung other subjects was discussed on the powerfull debate by David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Richard Leakey and Jane Goodall...the Selfish Green (can be watched on youtube etc).

Have not watched it for a while, but i believe Jane Goodall explained that by helping the Third World communities out of poverty would help to reduce the human population? as Paul explained better housing ect. They also comment that we need to stop the want for material items to lesson the impact on the planets resources. Mind you, i personally don't know how it is possible to do the two together?

P.s. If you have not watched the dabate then i highly recommend you do.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Fauna

This amoung other subjects was discussed on the powerfull debate by David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Richard Leakey and Jane Goodall...the Selfish Green (can be watched on youtube etc).

Have not watched it for a while, but i believe Jane Goodall explained that by helping the Third World communities out of poverty would help to reduce the human population? as Paul explained better housing ect. They also comment that we need to stop the want for material items to lesson the impact on the planets resources. Mind you, i personally don't know how it is possible to do the two together?

P.s. If you have not watched the dabate then i highly recommend you do.

I'll make a note to watch that - cheers!

I tend to be of the opinion that unless we make some effort to stop our negative impact on this world by population control and greener awareness then it will be taken out of our hands and we'll have no choice in the matter.

Gaia theory in interesting as far as this sort of debate is concerned, too.
Just a toe dip here -

Gaia Theory Synopsis

A

[Vectisbirder]

Originally Posted by acherontia

I tend to be of the opinion that unless we make some effort to stop our negative impact on this world by population control and greener awareness then it will be taken out of our hands and we'll have no choice in the matter.

I am of the same opinion. If we don't check our reproduction then nature will do it for us, and the results won't be pretty. Population was described as the 'elephant in the room' (I forget by who, sorry) and that's true as environmentalists on the whole and politicians avoid the issue.

I don't have kids and - apart from other reasons for not wanting any - overpopulation is one of the main reasons for me not having them.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Vectisbirder

I am of the same opinion. If we don't check our reproduction then nature will do it for us, and the results won't be pretty. Population was described as the 'elephant in the room' (I forget by who, sorry) and that's true as environmentalists on the whole and politicians avoid the issue.

I don't have kids and - apart from other reasons for not wanting any - overpopulation is one of the main reasons for me not having them.

Good for you! OH avoided them too - and I limited myself to two with my 1st OH. Trouble is trying to get other people to see the sense in this. You can't go around enforcing things can you?
I doubt very much whether anyone will acknowledge the elephant until it's too late. When elecricity/fuel/crops fail war will break out and it will all end in tears because everyone has avoided controversy.
'Ah well' (General Melchet from Blackadder) 'Can't be helped..'


Acher

[PMG]

I too have avoided having children (for a variety of reasons - the major one being my health) and have not as yet (four years off being an OAP!) regretted that decision!

One of the problems is that religion overules common sense and with two major religions preaching that contraception is wrong then there isn't much chance of changing things ..........

Another factor is that folks that can see the problem and refrain from breeding are being outweighed by those who cannot see the problem -therefore as their children grow up they won't see the problem either.

Frankly I've always thought that 'it will all end in tears' no matter what is said or done - that thought hasn't stopped me doing my bit but in the end I don't think it will make any difference to the outcome - I don't think mankind is capable of saving himself as a species .........

Pauline

[Lancashire Lad]

I agree - too many people, too few resources.

I've already said my twopennyworth here: -

The Big Question: Is there a technological solution to the problem of global warming?

Regards,
Mike.

[Rich_]

On the subject of ever increasing human numbers & all it's associated problems I read a good quote by the late Jack Hargreaves in his book "The Old "Country", which I think sits rather well with Paulines' 3rd paragraph in her last posting...

"Perhaps man is just a blind horse with the bit between his teeth , who can't be stopped until he hits a hay-barn?"

I have a lot of respect for those who choose not to have childeren, for whatever reason . After all it is their business, and there's so much pressure from society to have them!

Is that a hay-barn I see up ahead !!!?