: The only way to slow population growth is to redistribute wealth- governmental controls trying to limit peoples reproduction are offensive and counter productive. Overpopulation is code for lots of poor people. theres enough wealtha round for everyone currently alive to live well, be fd clothed and housed well- without destroying the environment.Dammit Red, the problem isn't too many poor people, it's too many fucking people (and too much fucking in general, haha). Obviously, the rich arre the biggest environmental destroyers and resiource consumers. But we all ahve a share, the poor included. I get pissed off when Americans have too many children, too. Statistics i've seen say that we could feed twice the current population on a latin American diet, which still might include some malnuitrition.
Do you not care for the rain forests, or the diversity of life on the earyth? Do not the gorillas,the dolphins and the crocodiules have a right to exist? i fiully recognize that redistribution has to be part of the plan, howevre, can you not acknowledge taht we need to protet our resources, natural beauty, adn biological diversity? And that this cannot happen without a reduction in our numbers?
Reduction in population means a bigger pie for everyone. If you can guarantee me, 100% certain, that we can feed and clothe X billion people WITHOUT significant redu ction of our remaining wildernesses, animal and plant life, and natural resources, then I will concede your point. But if tehre is a chance that you are wrong., don't you think it's safer to first achieve sustainability at our current populationmbefore daring to expand any further?
The Third World states that have doone the most for their people, like Cuba and kerala, have also managed to reduce population growth. If all of us, rich anfd poor, ahgreed to do teh same, while at teh same time redistributing wealthfairly, then and only tehn can we achieve both wilderness protection and increased standard of living.
