DU Poll on World Population

[SoLeftIAmRight]

30 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Way too many people
	22 (73%)
	Some too many people
	0 (0%)
	About right
	0 (0%)
	We can have a good bit more
	4 (13%)
	We can have a whole lot more
	1 (3%)
	9 kids is just too fucking many
	3 (10%)
	On Edit - by suggestion - I do not think about it
	0 (0%)
	On Edit - by suggestion - You are disgusting
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[cantbeserious]

1. Finite World - With Finite Resources - Better With Fewer Consumers

eom

[SoLeftIAmRight]

2. 2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided

what other options would one suggest?

[Warren DeMontague]

4. "the world" isn't a unit.

Some parts of the world have a population problem, others have other problems.

[Warpy]

12. Make that three

The problem isn't too many people, it's too many people in one place or other. The problem isn't that we're out of resources, it's that those resources aren't distributed equitably. The problem isn't third world women making too many babies, the problem is third world women having such low status that making babies is all they have to increase it.

When you know what some of the real problems are instead of the symptoms, you begin to develop the tools to solve them.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

15. Thanks

There are many smart people that think differently.

[AOR]

24. +1 excellent post...

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Conversations on population are generally a waste of time, here.

For starters, "the world" is not a single unit and even though people move around, population is not fungible.

If people want to talk about "the population problem", the place to focus are on the crushingly poor nations with fertility rates of around 9, where people are driven to have huge families, pardoxically, by cultural, religious and economic pressures.

In Western Nations where there is a high standard of living and a large degree of personal autonomy and -importantly- reproductive freedom, reproduction and fertility rates manage themselves just fine. But none of that matters when someone is going off anecdotally about the 9 child family on tv or the screaming babies that interrupted their dinner at TGIFs.

We have other pressing problems in the west- and certainly this conversation is a good reason to reiterate arguments for reproductive freedom and personal autonomy across the board- but the "population problem" isn't one of them.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

5. Thanks for the thoughtful post

...

[Travis_0004]

6. Agreed

For example, California may be in a drought. They need to conserve water, but I'm in the great lakes region. If I conserve water, it doesn't really help California. I think the US population is fine as is, but other places are overcrowded.

Although I would still argue, that on a whole, we have too many people.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. not sure about this part

"For starters, "the world" is not a single unit and even though people move around, population is not fungible."

If clarified it might pass but it is easy to say no.
Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Obviously the planet is a single entity. But population growth doesn't behave like one.

Otherwise this would all be the same color.

[hunter]

42. The world is not a single unit? Really???

Surely it is.

For example global warming is caused by greenhouse gases which are spewed into the atmosphere and spread worldwide causing certain places to become uninhabitable. Heck, let's imagine, although it cannot be proven, that climate change is major contributor to problems in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. Surprise! Refugees from those climate catastrophes start showing up on your border. So now it is EVERYBODY'S problem.

Even an island nation like Australia has a refugee problem. Some nations are large enough, and diverse enough, that they have their own internal refugee problems. (The U.S.A. is not going to be a fun place when we start turning against one another, more than we already have. Dust Bowl refugees were not welcomed into California, people flooded out in Florida and other shallow U.S. coastal areas will not be welcomed to higher ground...)

In any case, unless you are a sociopath living in a genocidal society that's willing to exterminate unpermitted immigrants trying to cross your boarders or landing on your shores, then overpopulation in other places DOES concern you. People move around, walking great distances, sailing in dangerous boats, or selling themselves to human traffickers.

The one thing that seems to reduce population growth is improvements in the social status of women, usually by some surprisingly minimal levels of nutrition, education, and medical care which includes easy access to birth control and instruction how to use it. Generally this is not something that can be imposed on other nations or cultures, it has to be built up from within, but it's an easy thing to support for any wealthier nation that's not run by racist, nationalistic, war-mongering, fundamentalist hypocrites.

Beyond human politics, the greatest evidence of human overpopulation is the accelerating extinction rate of other species. On natural timescales (which are vast) that's a self-correcting problem. Exponential growth of an innovative species such as ours always ends catastrophically. We shall become extinct as a species, or (if you are fond of people) our descendants will be subtly different than us and able to live in a sustainable way. Eventually new species will evolve to fill in the holes 20th and 21st century civilization blasted out of the natural environment. In a few hundred thousand years this mighty civilization will be forgotten, a curious layer of garbage in the geologic record.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Again, a waste of fucking time. "The world is so a single unit!" Derp

The population problem needs to be addressed in places where the high fertility rate actually is a problem, yes.

These threads arent about that, they're about complaining that the duggars or scalias have "too many kids" or why cant i go to applebees without hearing a crying baby,

[Kilgore]

8. No problem here

I live in a town of 600 located in a county of 3,800.

And both are shrinking.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

10. Yep - What happens in the rest of the world never touches some places.

I am a Rock

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=i+am+a+rock&qpvt=i+am+a+rock&view=detail&mid=4989910A36A66AFFB7C94989910A36A66AFFB7C9&FORM=VRDGAR

[Warren DeMontague]

35. So what exactly would you like to do about it?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

37. The whole point is a joke about Scalia having 9 fucking kids

I have one and think it sensible - With much greater income I might of had two.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I'm pro choice. The problem with that guy was that he was not.

Not the number of kids he had.

Part of the point of being pro choice, in my mind, is that its not my place to tell other people how many kids to have.

[rug]

9. That question can't be answered until the ownership and distribution of resources is addressed.

When capitalism, which reduces everything, includin humans, to a commodity, is eliminated once and for all, a genuine answer to that question will be apparent.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

11. nice post

be well

[MH1]

13. Really? What if the question were,

"is a population of 10 trillion people too many for the Earth, or just about right, or not enough?"

Would you still need to eliminate capitalism before you could answer that question?

[rug]

17. Yes I would.

Now you answer one.

How many human beings can capitalism support equitably?

[MH1]

19. So, it isn't obvious that 10 trillion people are too many,

no matter the economic system?

The answer to your question, if you mean pure, unregulated capitalism as in the wet dreams of the right-wing, is obviously ZERO.

But that doesn't mean that it is impossible to guesstimate an upper limit to the carrying capacity of the planet, even when an ideal economic system and government is assumed. (which it probably shouldn't be, but whatever, it's not the main point.)

[SoLeftIAmRight]

21. 10 trillion can be considered a very big number

safe to say - that is too many for Kansas

[rug]

22. Not necessarily.

The problem of course is not demographics but political economy.

[MH1]

26. Wow, seriously? Do you think the biosphere could support that many,

sustainably (as in for centuries or millenia), if we just had the right political economy?

It isn't about demographics, it's about biology.

But okay, if that's outside the scope of your perspective, no problem. I do think political economy is important, and does even affect the carrying capacity of the planet somewhat. But when we're talking orders of magnitude of just way the fuck out there, having the best political economy possible is NOT going to make a dent in the problem.

Anyway I'm sure you mean well and I probably agree with you quite a bit in your domain of expertise. So, never mind.

[rug]

29. What influence do you think human activities have on the biosphere?

How many humans could the means of production have sustained 100,000 years ago?

Now your ten trillion figure is simply an argument ad absurdum - a fallacy - but it doesn't mask the fact that capacity grows exponentially along with population. Nor does it mask the fact that a political and economic system based on private ownership, private interest and public exploitation is hands down the worst measure of any biological function.

Anyway I'm sure you mean well and probably think think Thomas Malthus was the last prophet in this domain of expertise. So, never mind.

[AOR]

31. Well said...

[MH1]

45. Nope, Malthus was not the last. But your argument is absurd. Resources are finite.

"Capacity grows exponentially along with population." << Just GMAFB. That makes no sense at all.

I've heard the theory that capacity grows with technology. But even that is a pretty risky plan for the future.

In fantasy world perhaps one day humanity will have developed a universal alchemy where matter is energy and energy is matter and we can just transform anything into whatever we need, and maybe there is enough energy accessible via sunlight or whatever, that we could support ANY number of people.

Until then there will be some limit on population.

The fact that you think 10 trillion is "simply an argument ad absurdum" implies that you think 10 trillion really would be too many people, at least at the current state of technology. Therefore you have just expressed that you believe there IS a limit. Now we are just arguing over where is the line.

I'd say given the pace of extinctions, humanity is having a huge impact on the biosphere. But if other species are irrelevant except as they support humans, I guess a loss of a few here or there just doesn't matter, does it?

[rug]

49. I won't give you a FB but I'll give you a F' in fact. Or three.

Agricultural productivity has grown exponentially. Manufacturing capacity has grown exponenentially. Solar capacity is growing exponentially

Now, you may thinik there is nothing in between zero population growth and "universal alchemy" but assuredly there is. Just as there is reality, not hyperbole, between seven billion and ten trillion.

As to the extinction of species, you're ignoring the (endangered) elephant in the room: It is a system that treats wildlife as up for grabs to and beyond the point of extinction, and only begrudgingly and at gunpoint accepts limits, that is the problem there.

How many species are you willing to lose to corporrations while you're hectoring human beings?

[MH1]

52. Corporations are run by human beings. (No they are not "people"

but they are run by people.)

I do a lot more activism around corporations and what they can and can't do, than "hectoring human beings" about how many kids they have. In fact, I don't "hector" anyone about their reproductive rate. What I do, however, is fight like hell for people to have the OPTIONS to control their OWN reproduction, and also point out that yes, it would be a good idea if humans didn't breed like rabbits, because the ecosystems we depend on on this earth, have just about had it.

By the way, which country's political/economic system do you think we should model? Which one gets it the most right, and is it good enough? Or is their not yet such a good enough system in existence?

[rug]

53. And not for human beings. They are run for private profit. (No, profit is not "people".)

No, you are hectoring. You do not simply "point out that yes, it would be a good idea if humans didn't breed like rabbits". BTW, comparing people to breeding rabbits is not making a gentle suggestion.

The answer to yor last question is none, presently. Not that it's not a great question. It's been asked reglarly since 1954, most notably at HUAC hearings.

[MH1]

59. So what is the plan to get to that ideal economic system? nt

(I don't actually use the phrase "breeding like rabbits" in normal discussion. Just really point out the various issues with overbreeding, again without using that specific word. And IRL I only bother with people who seem open-minded about it.)

I'm actually against capitalism in any current form that I'm aware of, except for perhaps some of the better versions in Scandinavia. We are so far from even that, that I'd take it as a positive step.

I'd be interested in what the plan is to get to the system you refer to, and what does it look like when we're there? Is compliance coerced, or is everything just so wonderful that people just live the way they're supposed to and no one tries to exploit others?

(Humorous side note. Someone I know has a bumper sticker that says, "Under Republicans, man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's the reverse." Thought you might enjoy that.)

[MH1]

46. By the way, I withdraw my thinking that you and I are close on any topic.

Capitalism is a completely immoral, wasteful, and otherwise wrong system, at least in any form that current capitalists would recognize. We could probably agree on that but I'm not going along with up is down and purple is orange and a quart jar can hold a gallon of water. That's all just nonsense, so I'm done.

[rug]

50. Thank god.

[MH1]

51. Yes, best for all concerned.

[AOR]

25. +1

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. I'm not sure that the problem is "way too many people", honestly.

The USA has 5% of the world's population and uses something like a quarter of the world's resources; the problem is less "too many people" than it is "profiligate and wasteful resource use by relatively few people".

[SoLeftIAmRight]

20. Yes - but that paints the USA in a bad light

[Warren DeMontague]

36. A resource utilization problem is different than a population one.

What population growth there is in the US is driven in large part by immigration, which means in many cases third world resource utilization level people are being turned into first world utilization level people.

Folks seem to walk away from the conversation, here, at that point ive noticed.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

39. I have explored "wild areas" all across America.

Over time - I have revisited many - the squeeze on many ecosystems continues and the chance for survival for many species is gone.

If we would stay on our current footprint it would still be way too much.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. I am not disputing that

But then if you want to talk about population as a driver for that domestically, you need to talk about immigration, because that is what is driving population growth in the US.

These are simple statistical facts.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

41. Agree

...

[GliderGuider]

16. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many people.

The maximum number of humans that the biosphere could sustain indefinitely without sustaining overall damage seems to be on the order of 7 to 50 million people. But only if they all live extremely low-energy lifestyles.

No really, how sustainable are we?

To get some feel for the enormous range of uncertainty in sustainability estimates we’ll look at six assessments, each of which leads to a very different outcome. We’ll start with the most optimistic one, and work our way down the scale.

(snip)

After this article was initially written, Dr. Fowler forwarded me a copy of an appendix to his 2009 book, "Systemic Management: Sustainable Human Interactions with Ecosystems and the Biosphere", published by Oxford University Press. In it he describes yet one more technique for comparing humans with other mammalian species, this time in terms of observed population densities, total population sizes and ranges.

After carefully comparing us to various species of both herbivores and carnivores of similar body size, he draws this devastating conclusion: the human population is about 1000 times larger than expected. This is in line with the second assessment above, though about 50% more pessimistic. It puts a sustainable human population at about 7 million.

[center][/center]

Disclosure: I wrote the above article.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

18. Many Thanks

devastating conclusion

[AOR]

30. Malthus and his debunked nonsense were a stain on human history...

These overpopulation arguments are nothing more than a convenient excuse for capitalist gatekeepers to defend the current political, economic, and social arrangements as the only way forward. It's overpopulation that's to blame , it's unregulated capitalism that's to blame, it's the Mormon Tabernacle Choir that's to blame. It's everything other than where the problem lies and that is with capitalism and the over production for the profits of parasites along with the rampant over consumption that goes with it for the "winners."

The real argument is not that there are "too many humans" but there are "too many of those others" who are excess baggage in the quest for a select utopia of the enlightened select few within a capitalist system. To continue to blame the masses and the victims for the debasement, hoarding, and destruction of natural resources caused by a very small ruling class of global capitalist parasites is beyond sickening.

The ruling class (those that own and control nearly all land, the commons, and the means and distribution of production) are producing and distributing for the greed and over consumption of the "capitalist winners" and not the need of the WHOLE of the masses. Blaming overpopulation and not confronting the capitalist modes of production, the question of private ownership of the commons and the land, and the commodification for profit of nearly every resource and human need is a highly reactionary stance.

Over population is not the problem. The problem is how production and resources are organized, managed, distributed, controlled and by whom. Capitalism can never provide an equitable distribution of production and resources in a way that takes care of the population as a whole and doesn't despoil and destroy everything around it as it does now. It is not the way forward for the human race and it won't be tamed or regulated. The resources and the means and distribution of production belong in the hands of the people as a whole and not in the hands of a ruling class of global capitalist parasites.

The fact that the depopulation crowd continues to use memes like "too many humans" instead of exposing capitalism for what it is - a system that hordes and funnels resources and the commons into the hands of the few for the immense profits of the few - says it all about whose side the depopulation crowd is on and it's not on the side of the people as a WHOLE.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

33. but still...

7 billion disturbs a whole lot of ecosystems

I wildlife areas they enclose various sized spaces with various height fencing to see what happens. In a tundra area, more than 40 years ago a man walked back and forth three times across the enclosure. Today you can still see the impact.

[MH1]

47. Of course you are correct.

But sometimes the blinders of ideology are too thick to see what is in front of one's face. (Or maybe one does not get out much.)

Then again, if one doesn't give a rat's ass about disturbing ecosystems, then there was nothing to see there anyway.

(Hoping you get my drift.)

[rug]

44. There are too many damn people in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir!

Great post!

[MH1]

48. Oh, bullshit. The capitalists want as many destitute people as possible as fodder for their

profit engines.

Why do you think the right-wing has allied with fundamentalists in opposing birth control?

Need cannon fodder for the MIC and cheap labor for the factories, warehouses, call centers, and McFastFood.

The LAST thing the capitalists want is a population that is well-educated and self-realized. Then the peons might start thinking for themselves and not put up with the bullshit. Keep the women pumping out babies even when they can't afford to feed them, and you've got your captive labor.

What would the capitalists ever do if the population starts declining and suddenly they can't sell as much of their shit? And maybe they actually have to keep employing healthy over-50 workers rather than laying them off at the first opportunity.

[philosslayer]

58. How would Social Security be maintained ?

It is dependent on an ever larger group of workers. If the population actually declines, Social Security is no longer viable.

[MH1]

64. That is where tweaking the economic system comes in.

You are right, SS is a conundrum with decreasing population rates.

However it is not an insoluble problem. The formula needs to be changed, that is all. (A bit more than what it already needs.)

I do not think this particular problem requires a complete overhaul of the economic system as some on this thread are advocating. (That doesn't mean that such an overhaul would be a bad thing, just that it is not necessary to resolve the Social Security issue.)

[AOR]

60. The bullshit belongs to you...

and overpopulation bullshit flows downhill on a very slippery slope into very dark places. You are blaming the victims. Nobody asked to be born on this rock and you or anybody else doesn't get to decide who is worthy to stay once they're here. You are preaching the Malthus parable, the convenient excuse for "enlightened" elitists who can't let go of capitalism and continue to blame the masses and the victims for the debasement, hoarding, and destruction of natural resources on the planet instead of putting the blame where it lies. Much easier than even thinking about making a stand against the scourge on the human condition and the planet that is global capitalism and overproduction for greed rather than need. How convenient to take the easy way out and blame the people. It is of course, the last refuge of capitalist reactionaries who don't want to organize and fight to put an end to human misery on this global capitalist shit hole.

Are you two part of the chosen elite and ecologically enlightened who get a boarding pass into your Malthusian fantasy land ? If not, maybe you can offer yourself up as a self-sacrifice for the great depopulation cause as an example of your solidarity with your fellow suitably enlightened depopulation followers. If that's not enough, you could also talk to your local new age astrologer and figure out how to reincarnate yourself as an edible sustainable plant seeing your so much more enlightened and one with nature than your fellow proles.


And as a side note. No, humans don't suck, but your overpopulation arguments certainly do.

[MH1]

66. My argument is much more nuanced than you give me credit for.

Two things can be true at the same time. Capitalism can exacerbate the problem, but overpopulation can still be a problem.

Nowhere do I advocate coercion to achieve population goals. We need to make it easy for people to make their own reproductive choices. Experience in third world countries has shown that when women are empowered, the DO lower their reproductive rate voluntarily.

You are attributing extreme statements to me that I have not made, and extreme positions that I do not hold.

I simply contend that your argument is BULLSHIT when you say carrying capacity of earth is infinite. That is absurd on its face.

If you want to prioritize economic revolution, fine. I just don't see the plan or any record of success in achieving it. So therefore we need to deal with actions we can take today that mitigate the problem.

[AOR]

68. There is no provable evidence of a "population bomb" on the horizon...

If you have it prove it with peer-reviewed research and not Malthus doom and gloom. There is much provable evidence that the capitalist modes of production and distribution (that prioritize profit over human needs) are a very serious problem. "Empowerment" is a meaningless buzzword under capitalist social relations. Empowerment for how many ? What about the rest ? "The poor will always be with us" is not an excuse. You want to continue this...lets hear your views on how global capitalism will "empower the masses and third world countries." The exact opposite is true. Capitalism does not elevate the masses it expropriates from the masses. Whenever I hear the words "unregulated capitalism" and overpopulation arguments in the same post it immediately sets off the warning bells of --capitalism as the "end of history."

[The2ndWheel]

70. Civilization is the resource concentration mechanism

Capitalism is just one of the ways we've fallen into to divide up the resources within the bigger framework. It's larger and larger groups of people that horde and funnel the common resources of the planet into the few hands of a single species.

Civilized humanity is the 1% of the planet. We've privatized the planet for humanity. Agriculture, livestock, roads, dams, zoos, it's all because of the winners.

Humans can't progress without that privatization though. It's what gives us the time necessary to keep society functioning. You can rail against capitalism all you want, but it's really a small part of the picture. Humans don't do well with limits. At least not with the ones we disagree with, but that's what makes existence complex and subjective.

[AOR]

71. Usually take a glance at posting history before responding to this kind of post...

that is hard to do at DU. Have to do a little searching but it's not hard to find. Not sure what to make of your posts or where you're coming from. You seem to hate human civilization and believe humans are evil and greedy by nature. "Human nature" arguments have always been the narrative of the ruling class and the gatekeepers of the status quo. Capitalism and privatization are not the preordained natural order of civilization or the "end of history", nor are they the by-product of humans in their natural state. In reality, it is the exact opposite. Communal relations were the principles of primitive human societies and tribes before recorded history and since the beginning of human existence.

[The2ndWheel]

72. Everyone comes from their own place

You seem to hate human civilization and believe humans are evil and greedy by nature.

I don't think I used the word evil. Greedy, yes, but I'm not sure greed is necessarily evil. Plus morality exists nowhere but in the human imagination as far as we know. Which goes to...

"Human nature" arguments have always been the narrative of the ruling class and the gatekeepers of the status quo.

This is why I wouldn't use the word evil. Or even good. Questions of morality are certainly for the gatekeepers of the status quo.

Capitalism and privatization are not the preordained natural order of civilization or the "end of history", nor are they the by-product of humans in their natural state. In reality, it is the exact opposite. Communal relations were the principles of primitive human societies and tribes before recorded history and since the beginning of human existence.

Existence has a mix of everything, which is why anyone can see whatever they want to see, all depending on their particular point of view. That's also why on a finite planet, everything comes at a cost. Everything has a downside, in addition to the upside. We keep trying to find a way around that downside, and we keep not being able to. That would be the reason that capitalism being all that's wrong is tough for me to buy into. I'm not sure there's even a solution to the problem. I don't know if there's even a "problem" exactly, up to an including civilization as an entity, because words and their definitions are created by human beings, and we're not objective.

The question then is, what is the problem that capitalism, or socialism, or civilization, or whatever, is trying to solve? And is that problem, objectively speaking, an actual problem? Or do human beings, with our abstract imaginations, only think it's a problem?

[GliderGuider]

74. +1 nt

[yourpaljoey]

32. Thank you for that

[Blue_In_AK]

23. There is just about the right number of people

IN ALASKA. Everywhere else is too crowded.

I'm very happy with one person per square mile.

[valerief]

27. Too many Duggars, not enough vasectomies. nt

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. My favorite reply

[Dont call me Shirley]

54. 7.5 billion people can live on this earth sustainably, happily and comfortably. We simply need to

change our practices to achieve this.

[Quixote1818]

61. You are probably right

If all we used were renewables and recycled the planet would be in pretty good shape. Did you factor in the cutting down of the Rainforests though? I guess if we reach 7.5 billion and stay there then the need for trees would diminish as growth stopped.

[Dont call me Shirley]

65. We can slo minimize our dependence on wood using hemp, bamboo and probably many other

fast growing plants. We can develop lightweight building blocks using sand and lightweight materials. Grow food organically. Stop poisoning our environment.

[MineralMan]

55. So, if the planet is overpopulated,

Who should die first? This topic is fraught with danger. Who is expendable? Do we look for volunteers?

If you ask this question, you need potential answers in advance. Otherwise, it suggests some really horrible things. No vote from me.

Here's my answer though. In 1965, at the age of 20, I decided not to reproduce, and have not. I am 70 years old now. The problem was clear then, and that was my response to it. What's you solution?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

56. One child and I can be ok with people that have two - three is out

more - fuck

[MineralMan]

57. And you? How many children?

Now or planned? Me? Zero.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

62. thank you

First and only marriage at 30 - one child not planned at 35 - she is 22 - still married

[MH1]

63. The no-brainer answer is to provide easy access to control one's own reproduction.

Voluntary reduction in birth rate is the first step.

Of course, as Warpy noted astutely upthread, there are many issues driving women in third world countries to have a lot of babies. One is lack of access to reproductive services. One is mortality - it is uncertain how many kids will survive so of course they have as many as possible. Another is economic. Maybe need kids to help maintain the homestead, do chores like fetching water from a mile or more away everyday. Tons of reasons that have nothing to do with just breeding for the hell of it. So those issues need to be solved before expecting the birth rate to fall there.

The thing is, access to reproductive options, and solving those other issues, is the humane and moral thing to do, period. It has the added benefit that when all these problems are solved to a reasonable degree, guess what, birth rates do fall voluntarily.

I'm personally to the point where I think that voluntary reproductive choice may not be enough. BUT by no means do I advocate coercion. If I am right, humanity will just have to deal with the conflicts that will inevitably arise from lack of access to clean water, air, energy, and arable land.

I think there is great suffering coming. The more we can give people choices NOW to manage their reproduction, the more we reduce the coming conflicts.

This is why protecting Roe v Wade and expanding access to birth control and abortion is so important. And yes I do my part in that fight.

[yuiyoshida]

67. We really don't have the Mega Cities like they do in Asia

[SoLeftIAmRight]

69. bump for the night

...

[Glassunion]

73. There is an easy and quite simple solution that can be implemented to address this issue.