Should we start campaigning for negative population growth?
Image by antonemus
Maksudnya, ini sayur aman untuk dimakan karen tidak pakai bahan kimia.
Question by Jerome: Should we start campaigning for negative population growth?
Given the direct correlation between population growth and environmental problems, it is difficult to ignore that our continuing growth is exerting more and more pressure on the Earth every year. Even if we consider the variation in consumption rates (e.g., the US has a lower growth rate than most poor countries but actually consume more resources per capita), the net effect is the same–more environmental damage every year.
Give your answer to this question below!
9 Responses to Should we start campaigning for negative population growth?
Leave a Reply
Is it called population growth if negative?
Believe economically population growth is generally seen as a PRO, an considering that economics rule the human world (not the environment) I don’t see it happening.
mintie_boy
October 8, 2013 at 8:37 pm
till the past few years India’s population is considered to be a cons for India’s growth. But this not gonna be the situation in the future. India is a young country with an average age of 26. So this young population is going to rule the world. So don’t blame the population growth. use the excellent human resources we have to become the number one country in the world.
sree
October 8, 2013 at 9:16 pm
Yes, we should be campaigning for a population decrease. No, the majority of the worlds population would not consider it moral. What they won’t take into account is that over-consumption in itself is completely immoral, and that this excess in human consumption is eventually going to kill the planet, I have no doubts.
Brittany Flynn
October 8, 2013 at 9:35 pm
I agree. All the people that believe that the population is to big should stop breeding.
Peter
October 8, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Sure. By the time anything happens, I will be dead and not relying on a growing work force to pay into the social security fund which keeps me eating.
oikos
October 8, 2013 at 10:23 pm
You would only promote such a policy if you bought into the social engineering and propaganda promoted by the same people who gave you the global economic slump- the banksters.
Don’t worry about population. The earth’s population would fit inside the borders of the US state of Texas with plenty of room to spare.
Would you be so willing to promote such a policy if you were to be first in line for the ovens? That is the basis of what you suggest. Just because you promote it does not mean you will be one of the inner circle to make decisions. In fact, you will not ever have a chance to be of that inner circle making decisions. That I can guarantee.
J.
October 8, 2013 at 11:19 pm
There is no question that population growth leads to environmental problems, poverty, and a huge host of nearly intractable problems. However, to solve this problem with a head-on approach, such as China’s one-child policy, leads to even greater societal problems.
The problem has to be solved by bolstering the well-being of women and children, especially in developing countries and in poverty. This may not seem logical at first glance, but many scholars and aid groups have studied this intensively and have found that when women are empowered fully to plan their families (contraception), are given adequate medical care, infant mortality rates are minimized, and given adequate assistance to make a sufficient living– then growth rates can be greatly improved. (These programs are also greatly enhanced by programs to help with clean water, sustainable agriculture, vaccination and health clinics, education, etc. — It must be a multi-faceted approach to be successful.)
As a result, most experts in this area believe that groups that see to the health of women and children are going to be the best approach for getting population growth under control while still preserving healthy social structures and preserving individual liberties. One group that is leading the way is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Slim Vader
October 9, 2013 at 12:09 am
Start at home- get a vasectomy. Save yourself lots of money and 18 years of hell.
thor
October 9, 2013 at 12:37 am
We definitely should promote it. No matter how low our consumption rates get, we still have to consume somethings to survive. Clean water, food, medicines, oxygen. Eventually, if we do not stop having so many children, there will be a point in time that BILLIONS will starve. We already are closing in on 6.7 billion humans, and growing. How many more people can this planet support? Even if you forget about all the other animals, and just have us, the planet can still only support only so many organisms our size.
hardcoregirl4ever
October 9, 2013 at 12:52 am