The little lost angel wrote:
>>>Everyone will disagree with the above. Reducing population is not the
>>>same as reducing wastage. The largest polluters are not the most
>>>populous nations.
>
>
> It works out pretty much the same, if not worse. 1 billion people
> responsible for 1x pollution today has the same effect as 100 million
> in other country responsible for 10x today. But in the long run, that
> 1 billion people will eventually, as a natural progression of
> "economic development", increase their ecological damage to 2x, 3x and
> adding more people to boot.
>
> Furthermore, ecological damage is NOT just about wastage. The Earth
> can only support that many people, every single person needs some
> space and food at least. That space has to be taken from somewhere,
> whether you clear forests to build more houses or cut more trees/blast
> more rocks to build taller ones. The food has to be grown/harvested
> from somewhere too.

Well, were far far away from the limit.

> Nobody can deny that reducing/limiting human population on earth is
> the only true long term solution to ecological damage.

It happens naturally for all species, including humans. Look at those
developed countries -- the population there is generally stagnant.


> But it's also
> one that least raised because of the controversial nature.

And because the premise if false.

> It's a lot
> easier trying to tell people to bring their own bags to shop, to cut
> down on car usage, to use energy efficient products, than to tell them
> to curb animal selfish gene instincts and not have kids.

This is a bad proposition from really many different reasons. First of all
those living in developed countries do have less kids, and having even less
has much more negative effects for them and their communities than positive
ones. Those who "mass produce" kids are from those poorly developed regions.
Those DINK and DIOK movements in developed countries make no sense at all
and in fact are harmful.
Second, growing number of old, unproductive people without "new
replacements" poses significant economical and sociological problems.


> For those who want kids, please adopt one.

Do you know, that big percentage of those adopted kids are ending back
without parents (as "parents" are unable to accept them in the long run).
People are only people and all attepts to create heaven on earth fail
miserably and typically with great suffering to the millions.


> There are tens of thousands
> of orphans who could do with and would appreciate good parents and a
> home, unlike many "native" brats nowadays. You will change the life of
> a human for the better as well as reduce a human's lifetime load to
> the environment.

This simply won't work. And if you try to force peple to do so, you'll just
make more suffering.


[...]
rgds
\SK