Topic: What is the most ethical way to reduce the growth of human population? (Read 217 times)

I respect your opinion but its not always about habitat , many country even lived beside polluted river , just to get a waste food so their family can eat, Too many children in a family is a crucial things to them, first the children can't go to school because of poverty, second the they don't have a house and if theyre going to relocate , it I's much harder to them to adopt where they will be placed.

Of course we couldn't possibly fill up every part of the earth. There's no need to do that either. There is so much more space. If people want, we can also just build taller. Theoretically every house or 2 or 5-storey building could be replaced with a 50-storey building or maybe even a 100-storey building. There are so many places left to inhabit. Take a look at some stunning images of how much of Canada is empty: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/17/canada-empty-maps_n_5169055.html. You can see her that 47 percent of the US is uninhabited: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607431/Want-away-Interactive-map-shows-staggering-47-PERCENT-country-currently-uninhabited.html. There are plenty of good places to live, if needed.

This question is impossible to answer in the present situation. Had it been posed one or two hundred years ago, we could say education was key. Now that human population has reached epidemic proportions, band-aids are insufficient. Nothing short of a radical reduction of birthrates worldwide, coupled with mechanisms to keep human growth in check, would have any effect. Given the global misery in store if we do nothing, how is this unethical? The only solution I have seen is in fiction. Dan Brown's supposedly evil protagonist in his latest novel ‘Inferno,’ did come up with just such a solution, at the genetic level, which had no impact on the current generation but great benefits to all future generations. Would this could be made a reality.

I get your view. I have a follow up question, Does this mean that every place that humans have not occupied has to be occupied? what about other living species? And lastly, Don't you think that places where are not yet occupied by human are not that favorable for survivor in the long run?

I completely agree with you. There are so many places in the world that are just empty. I would actually say that most of the world is not inhabited by people. People really just group together in the big cities. Of course, you wouldn't actually have to kill people to reduce the population. It can happen naturally. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary. In terms of food, people are worried that we'll run out. Well I've heard that we actually through out about 50% of food that is produced! If we just fixed that problem, we could feed twice as many people!

I do not believe in this topic. Humans are not so many as we think. Even if we were so many, why reduce for what? Many people think that food will not be enough in the future but it is not true. We have a lot of places where we can cultivate. Countries like Canada and Russia are actually empty. People can easily move there if there are nowhere to go. With science, we can easily plant anywhere. We are already eating modified fruits and vegetables. We are doing great. We do not need to kill people or to reduce the population.

I think that the ost ethical way to reduce the population of mankind is through introducing birth control, especially in the provinces and states in which the statistics shows that the majority of the females who have been pregnant is from the rural areas. By making a complex and sound plan to distribute birth control materials and proper education about birth control, it will drastically reduce the population of mankind.

Educate our children on how to adopt birth control and also eradicate unwanted pregnancy which common nowadays.

what I would suggest is to change the social structure of developing nations while at the same time introducing economical advancements steered toward cultural evolution.

here a few methods

education can help curve fertility rates,but how useful might that be in a male dominant society where forced marriage is still the norm?
the solution:introduce norm that empower freedom and independence, while shaming those infringing on those right as if there committing a taboo, and that it acceptable for couple to have no children at all

2. the senior population might want more grandchildren for various economical and personal reason. diminishing workforce,more retiree then economic supporters,old mcgutget family-owned farm need more child labor etc.

the solution: keep advancing technology to at least substitute for the difference in the job market while the population is in transition for a smaller demographic

3. especially in developing nations, the main reason why people procreate vigorously is to better there odds of passing there legacy and that one will be a success in a poverty stricken area, more children mean better their chances.

the solution: make the opposite true; offer programs for single-children (or that has only one biological sibling) that allow various resources to be accessible to them. I don’t think they would want 7 or 8 gosling in a polluted pond if they know that stopping at one will ensure they (under-tale reference) will become a geese thriving in a crystal clear lake (world)

WHAT DO YOU THINK?