Control the world population and all the environmental problems will vanish.Agree?

I feel the reason for all the environmental issues today is uncontrolled human breeding.Then why are our world leaders shy away from it.The term Popuation Control has become a taboo phrase and all are afraid even to mention it! But, that is the panacea for all the environmental disasters.|||False.



You have to control, or preferably eliminate, world prosperity, not population, if you want to remove environmental problems as a variable. Without prosperity, population will eventually control itself. It's people successfully trying to make money that are causing all the problems.|||Well since you are for population control. Will you be the first to voluntarily sterilize yourself? Further, since you seem to be suggesting a limit to the number of babies a woman is allowed to have, do you also support the fact that many of the female babies were killed or sold as sex slaves due the China's policy?



It is a taboo phrase for a reason. Thus far all attempts, beyond simply educating, have lead to horrible consequences. Whereas, education and women's rights has already lead to the first world countries have 0 population growth. Think about it.



Edit:

Furhter you should look at the govt of the nations that have a high population growth. They are not exactly democracies. Do you really want to ask those dictators to figure out a way to lessen their population? They will come up with a way, but it may involve mass killings. Further, do you really think that the US or any first world country has the right to dictate to third world countries how many babies they can have. It would seem absurd to me, given how much more CO2 first world countries produce in comparison with third world. Overall, I think that you are not aware of the problem and have no idea of what the effect of your proposed solutions will be.



Pegminer,

From your answer, can I suppose that you have evidence that these storms were caused by AGW. You are linking the deaths caused by the storms directly to AGW, so could you provide you evidence of the cause and effect relationship?|||Actually, while much of our problem seems to stem from our rapid increase in population, that is not strictly the case. AGW is a by-product of the way we are industrializing, not specifically our population growth. It's true that our current expansion is partly driven by the hydrocarbon industries, but this is not an absolute prerequisite. Advances in medicine and sanitation have been the main drivers of population increases. The Indians and Chinese have the largest populations, but neither is a highly-developed country. Even now, they are just developing their infrastructure - in the worst ways possible, as far as AGW is concerned. This also is not necessary. Rather it is easier and more convenient - and cheaper in the short run - to use coal and oil technology instead of less polluting or non-polluting methods.





Conversely, the industrial revolution started in the less-populous West. If Asia had suffered a plague that killed over 90% of the population in 1800 AD, this would not have significantly changed the course of industrial development in the West, and we would have AGW now anyway, of just a little bit less intensity.





This is not to say that reducing the number of people using gas-guzzling cars will not help, but we can reduce the number of gas-guzzlers or the number of people to achieve the same ends. So all in all, while significant population reduction would help in the short term, because we are in a particular historical situation now, it is not the cure. A total population of 1 billion people driving giant SUVs would do more to create AGW than what we are now doing.|||Wouldn't environmental disasters act as a method of population control?





Since this the global warming section, let me expound. Global warming is supposed to be an extreme man made disaster in the waiting killing millions or possibly billions of people. Well, there's your population control right there. Just let global warming take its course as an environmental disaster, millions will die and world population with take a dive. Problem solved.|||Couldnt agree with you more on this one....all of the problems around us are created by us and it is that we are exploiting the natural resourses more and more as there are a lot more people who need it.





I am from a country with the 2nd largest population on earth and I can vouch for the fact that the immense population of this country is putting endless strain on the environment...it is so bad that 1/3 of my country doesnt even have clean drinking water...i mean if there were less no. of us all of us would have enough water to drink...





I completely agree that population is the biggest issue in the world which is directly proportional to all the issue....





Check this


High Population = More vehicles = Increased CO2 emmision = greenhouse effect = global warming


High Population = More vehicles = more pollution = many species on the verge of extinction


High Population = More space required = more buildings =more deforestation = harm to the environment.





And the list goes on and on.





Great question.





Good luck


Peace|||Yeah it has to be controlled but there are some few things to be considered.


One or two children is enough for a family I think and if someone is having some fun, should use safety precautions. You know what I mean?


But when we think of the number of people who die due to various accidents and other things agreeing with your question has to be thought twice.


For a country to be sustainable there should be people and it doesn't mean breeding the human kind without any control.|||Blaming it all on overpopulation is merely refusing to do what we can to address the problem.


The planet's population is not going to drop significantly over the next century or so, even with Chinese level birth control. Population control is much longer term than the issues we need to face.|||A lot of the answers given here to your question is proof that global warming has been made up to destroy capitalism. Kill prosperity and you kill global warming and to do that you must kill capitalism. That is the plan. Global warming is a hoax and the data that is being used to prove it is tainted or just plain inaccurate.|||Absolutely


exterminate everyone and man-made environmental problems will vanish


of course there will still be geologic ones


such as volcanic ash explosions


Droughts


Tornadoes


etc|||No.





Using resources efficiently would have the same impact as reduced population.|||Well, remove yourself from the earth, and we'll all take notes about what happens.





The earth is fine, it's mostly empty.|||Yes.eat the homeless.|||I don't think anyone has the heart to kill billions of people, just for the sake of population control|||No, because our energy use per capita has been going up, so world energy demands would be rising even if our population wasn't. As long as we are primarily relying on fossil fuels for our energy and our energy use is rising, population stabilization would ease, but not solve, our environmental problems.



EDIT: Let me comment on Ottawa Mike's answer, which strikes me as extremely callous. The types of death that might be caused by global warming are an increase in the number of fatalities from storm systems, as well as starvation caused by drought. For example, Cyclone Nargis killed about 140,000 people in 2008, many being swept away by the tidal surge and drowning. Do you really consider this a preferred method of population stabilization Mike? Similarly, millions have died in Africa from famine caused by ongoing drought. Is starving to death better than using a condom Mike, or better than limiting CO2 emissions?



While it's not possible to look at individual events such as these and say "Yes, that one was caused by global warming," it is possible over the long term to look at many such events and see a statistical increase that might be attributed to global warming. However, most rational people think a better alternative is to keep the frequency of things like catastrophic cyclones and drought-induced famine from increasing.



The idea that someone might think that unnecessary deaths from such disasters as being a preferred method of population control is beyond my own comprehension.



EDIT: I expel...Read my entire answer next time and you might not feel the need to make superfluous comments.



Another EDIT for Jerry: See my comments above for I expel...



In general I would suggest that when you guys think you're being clever, you should make sure that you're ACTUALLY being clever, and not just being superficial.



Another EDIT for Jerry: Maybe some saw fit to give you thumbs down (not me) because it plagiarized my answer, while apparently not fully understanding it. Your answer really proves nothing except that there were disasters before AGW, which is something no one in the world questions.|||The types of death that might be caused by global warming are an increase in the number of fatalities from storm systems, as well as starvation caused by drought. For example, Cyclone Nargis killed about 140,000 people in 2008, many being swept away by the tidal surge and drowning

do you mean disasters like these

China, 1642

Flooding takes about 300,000 lives.





China, 1876 - 1879

The deadliest drought in recorded history was in China between 1876 and 1879. Rivers were dry, so most crops and livestock died. There was no food production in a 1-million km2 area of 9 provinces. The drought caused the death of an estimated nine million people

China, 1887

The worst flood in "modern history" happened in China in 1887. The Yellow River overflowed, causing the death of about 900,000 people. (Some reports say it was a million that parished.)



China, 1931

A flood on the Changjiang River took at least 145,000 people (other estimates go over a million, but we have not confirmed that).



China, 1935

Another Yellow River flood "caused 27 counties inundated and 3.4 million victims". How many actual lives were killed we don't know. If you have facts, let us hear from you

China, 1939

A flood takes about 200,000 lives

China, 1942 - 1943

A drought in the Henan province took the lives of more than a million people.

Bangladesh, 1970

In 1970, a cyclone and related floods killed about 500,000 people. With winds of up to 230 km/h, the cyclone crashed into the heavily populated coastal area of the Bay of Bengal, where several river deltas normally provide fertile land. The terrible winds produced massive waves, which wiped out many entire villages. Millions of people were left homeless in this country that is one of the most densely populated and one of the poorest in the world.

did anyone notice all these natural disasters happened before the global warming, climate whatever doom and gloom, simply amazing that nowadays everything is blamed on climate disruption or whatever the new buzz word is