| Fumanchu said: I'm really more concerned with the population growth, which is a direct causation. If population growth remains steady at today's level then in ~700 years they'll only be enough land density left for an individual to occupy 1 metre squared to his or herself. Obviously it can't get to that stage and 0% population growth has to occur sometime fairly short-term. Which is really quite scary, as I think we have a better chance of agreeing to a war than to organise a world-wide regulation on controlling the population epidemic, if it means countries have to voluntarily reduce their GDP. Ironically, one of the ways we can counter population growth is by reducing the average life expectancy by increasing carbon emissions and pollution...or maybe the increase in natural disasters is nature's way? |
You are talking about depopulation, sounds extreme. Mao and Stalin and other dictators effectively achieved that by starving or killing their own people. Communism or National Socialism. Purge the people who do not deserve to live or fit a specific model of perfection like Hitler's Aryan race.
Birth control and abortion help control population growth. The Catholic church opposes birth control and abortion due to their draconian 2000 year old doctrines.
One child per couple policy just like China may be the way to go. People do not have to be killed or starved under a Communist dictatorship.
0% population growth. Why not go for negative population growth? Low birth rates,more people leaving the country and higher death rates would result in a negative annual growth rate for that nation. Developing third world nations have higher population growths than developed first world nations.
