Is population control ultimately the only reasonable method to preserve a habitable planet?

Presuming that the white smock guys and gals are right about global warming, would predicted population growth in developing countries defeat our best efforts to mitigate the 'problem' anyway?? Going from 6 billion to 9 billion in 50 years seems quite significant, especially when it is realized that many 'third world' nations will be increasing their resource usage?Is population control ultimately the only reasonable method to preserve a habitable planet?
No, I don't think so. At least I haven't seen credible science to back up th population control idea as a major way to affect global warming.





I think population control is just being used as a ';controversial'; subject by people who want us all to argue over it rather than about real ways to reduce global warming (like, uh, using less oil). Kind of like getting people to argue over ';gay marriage'; instead of the economic crisis. Wag the Dog.








We need to use less fuel and waste less energy.Is population control ultimately the only reasonable method to preserve a habitable planet?
You do know that Erhlich lost the bet with Julian Simon, don't you?

Report Abuse

It doesn't matter whether Erlich lost any bets, the idea that there is a limit to population does not require anything but common sense. John Terry Randall, let's all come live at your place, can you handle 6 billion people? How about 10 billion? Or maybe 20 billion?

Report Abuse

Quite simply, YES! Over-population is the biggest threat to both the planet and humanity. In fact their is evidence to suggest we are already over-populated; Thousands of people are already living in poverty, a good portion or once arable land is now desertified, fish stocks are heavily depleted, food prices are on the up because drought and other factors is creating a shortage, fossil fuels are being used up. And lets not even start on the effect an increasing population has on carbon emmissions.


Lets face it when any other animal breeds out of control, one of two things happens. 1) the whole colony faces starvation because they run out of food or 2) we humans intervene and cull the polulation to allow the others to survive.


Now obviously we are unable to ';cull';, so the only way to decrease the population is thorugh population-restriction policies. Currently as far as I'm aware China is the only country with any form of population control, and someone suggested that as an example of not-working. It is the Chinese culture of boys being worth more than girls that has caused the problem there, not the policy itself.
Yes, the population of Earth cannot keep increasing. It's so funny that people don't see this. If they thought of it in terms of their own houses it would be obvious.





If the population and energy usage of the Earth keep going up, the only way to stop global warming will be with renewable energy, such as solar. Anything that added waste heat would become a problem, regardless of whether or not it emitted carbon dioxide.
I'm sure you have already done a lot of research on it, but I think that pop. control is not the only way or is even a good way. China is starting to see problems with their pop. control method because there are more men than there are women.


I am concerned about how we treat our planet and the best answer I have come up with is to live a more localized life. Eat the food that comes from the area that you live in. Buy the goods that come from your area. As far as third world countries, I think that more study should go into what people in those areas used to eat- what thrives in different climates, soils etc? Our world has become so globalized that we set standards for how others should live, but in some cases we are pulling them away from centuries and centuries of traditions. Maybe getting back to our roots. Also, if we all lived more localized lives we would see more farms popping up, which would help with producing more oxygen. We all need to consume less. Eat more grains, fruits, veggies and less meat. I don't know if that helps any, but I am interested to see others' ideas. Great Q!
Makes sense to me.





Each person breathes out CO2





Each person expels much methane containing flatus.





Each person puts out more heat per square inch than does the sun.





Each person puts a demand on the earths resources.





And when the population is increasing by 70 million people per year where is the sense in changing a single light bulb for a more energy efficient bulb.





We need to go to a permit system.
Depends how smart we are about how we use resources. Getting that big would require that we be pretty smart.





There are certainly ';back to the caves'; type environmentalists who think massive population decline would be the best. I don't know about that.





Clearly, 6 billion is quasi-sustainable, as we are doing it. We have the ironically named ';green revolution'; to thank for that, a 1950s movement to increase yields of various crops, mainly by making them highly dependent on petroleum. (whoopy-daisy!) If we can figure out ';Green Revolution 2.0 the carbon-free version';, we might just pull it off.
Yup, unfortunately it is. I believe we need a ';Godly act of nature'; to reduce population as it is now. Maybe another global flood? Oh oh or how about a giant meteor? Yea! AIDS is good but not fast enough...
sounds very reasonable to me.


if the bolshevik's %26amp; capitalist pigs had not interfered with my efficient population control methods 65 years ago things would be considerably different today.
Yes and I think the greens should be the first ones to set an example by going to the nearest ocean and start swimming.