Quote:
Originally Posted by balok
That entails keeping people from having sex or making them take pills to prevent pregnancy. Sounds like tampering with nature to me. Humans are as much a part of the environment as everything else.
|
Heh... yeah, like locusts and prions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by balok
Our ability to proliferate is a survival trait that has saved the race more than once in the event of a cataclysm, and a widespread genepool makes for more efficient natural selection.
|
However, with a lack of population control, said survival trait is overwhelming the planet. There's such a thing as "too much of a good thing."
Quote:
Originally Posted by balok
Curtailing at 100 million sounds like a bad idea.
|
Why? Is there some particular reason we need 5 billion people? We were straining the planet's resources before we reached our first billion (about 1830AD), we just didn't know how to recognize it.
Is there some particular reason why 100 million would not be considered enough people to allow the human race to survive? Were we, as a race, at particular threat of extinction when our population was that size, at approx. 500BC? No... a number of plagues reduced our numbers, but we bounced back ably. Would we be under the same threat of extinction today?
I say 100 million is a
great number for human population. That number would have more than enough worldwide resources for food, shelter and amenities and ensure survivability numbers without risking the health and welfare of the planet to provide them.