What is the most ethical way to reduce the growth of human population?

[Michelle_Wood]

I do not believe in this topic. Humans are not so many as we think. Even if we were so many, why reduce for what? Many people think that food will not be enough in the future but it is not true. We have a lot of places where we can cultivate. Countries like Canada and Russia are actually empty. People can easily move there if there are nowhere to go. With science, we can easily plant anywhere. We are already eating modified fruits and vegetables. We are doing great. We do not need to kill people or to reduce the population.

[1714034530]

1714034530

[Raymund02]

Knowing that contraceptives and abortion are sins and in some country is still against the human rights, the most ethnical way that I can think of to reduce the growth of human population is for all parents to practice self control and be mindful of the consequences of having a big family. A parent that is knowledgeable about sex, reproduction, responsibilities and population is most likely to have self control and lessen giving birth to a child. Because he would think of how to raise them and how to support them from birth, education, needs and wants. In that way, we can help reduce the growth of human population.

[neal.gerard]

I do not believe in this topic. Humans are not so many as we think. Even if we were so many, why reduce for what? Many people think that food will not be enough in the future but it is not true. We have a lot of places where we can cultivate. Countries like Canada and Russia are actually empty. People can easily move there if there are nowhere to go. With science, we can easily plant anywhere. We are already eating modified fruits and vegetables. We are doing great. We do not need to kill people or to reduce the population.

I completely agree with you. There are so many places in the world that are just empty. I would actually say that most of the world is not inhabited by people. People really just group together in the big cities. Of course, you wouldn't actually have to kill people to reduce the population. It can happen naturally. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary. In terms of food, people are worried that we'll run out. Well I've heard that we actually through out about 50% of food that is produced! If we just fixed that problem, we could feed twice as many people!

[LuckyDestroyer]

I do not believe in this topic. Humans are not so many as we think. Even if we were so many, why reduce for what? Many people think that food will not be enough in the future but it is not true. We have a lot of places where we can cultivate. Countries like Canada and Russia are actually empty. People can easily move there if there are nowhere to go. With science, we can easily plant anywhere. We are already eating modified fruits and vegetables. We are doing great. We do not need to kill people or to reduce the population.

I completely agree with you. There are so many places in the world that are just empty. I would actually say that most of the world is not inhabited by people. People really just group together in the big cities. Of course, you wouldn't actually have to kill people to reduce the population. It can happen naturally. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary. In terms of food, people are worried that we'll run out. Well I've heard that we actually through out about 50% of food that is produced! If we just fixed that problem, we could feed twice as many people!

I get your view. I have a follow up question, Does this mean that every place that humans have not occupied has to be occupied? what about other living species? And lastly, Don't you think that places where are not yet occupied by human are not that favorable for survivor in the long run?

[Sithara007]

Here is the most ethical way: Implement a strict one child policy. If a couple is violating this policy and having a second child, then they should be fined $1,000. In case they are having a third child, they should be fined $5,000 ($5K for each subsequent child). This will make sure that the slum dwellers won't engage in population explosion.

[neal.gerard]

I do not believe in this topic. Humans are not so many as we think. Even if we were so many, why reduce for what? Many people think that food will not be enough in the future but it is not true. We have a lot of places where we can cultivate. Countries like Canada and Russia are actually empty. People can easily move there if there are nowhere to go. With science, we can easily plant anywhere. We are already eating modified fruits and vegetables. We are doing great. We do not need to kill people or to reduce the population.

I completely agree with you. There are so many places in the world that are just empty. I would actually say that most of the world is not inhabited by people. People really just group together in the big cities. Of course, you wouldn't actually have to kill people to reduce the population. It can happen naturally. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary. In terms of food, people are worried that we'll run out. Well I've heard that we actually through out about 50% of food that is produced! If we just fixed that problem, we could feed twice as many people!

I get your view. I have a follow up question, Does this mean that every place that humans have not occupied has to be occupied? what about other living species? And lastly, Don't you think that places where are not yet occupied by human are not that favorable for survivor in the long run?

Of course we couldn't possibly fill up every part of the earth. There's no need to do that either. There is so much more space. If people want, we can also just build taller. Theoretically every house or 2 or 5-storey building could be replaced with a 50-storey building or maybe even a 100-storey building. There are so many places left to inhabit. Take a look at some stunning images of how much of Canada is empty: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/17/canada-empty-maps_n_5169055.html. You can see her that 47 percent of the US is uninhabited: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607431/Want-away-Interactive-map-shows-staggering-47-PERCENT-country-currently-uninhabited.html. There are plenty of good places to live, if needed.

[GG_Maker]

There is no need “to reduce the growth of human populations”! Human populations are self-regulating and the current population rate decline is happening naturally, concurrent with the growing role of females in the paid workforce and within society. True, some patrioarchical regions are lagging behind, but it’s obvious that the societies that can harvest the creative and intellectual capacities of their female members will out-compete those that limit female participation. (Islamic and Latin American societies continue to struggling with one hand tie behind their backs.). With female participation comes declining fertility and population growth. Today we’re headed toward a more equatable equilibrium of the human population with the resources available (strongly resisted by the retrograde elites in power).

[neal.gerard]

This question is impossible to answer in the present situation. Had it been posed one or two hundred years ago, we could say education was key. Now that human population has reached epidemic proportions, band-aids are insufficient. Nothing short of a radical reduction of birthrates worldwide, coupled with mechanisms to keep human growth in check, would have any effect. Given the global misery in store if we do nothing, how is this unethical? The only solution I have seen is in fiction. Dan Brown's supposedly evil protagonist in his latest novel ‘Inferno,’ did come up with just such a solution, at the genetic level, which had no impact on the current generation but great benefits to all future generations. Would this could be made a reality.

There would have been no way to predict this 200 years ago. In 1818, there was just a little more than 1 billion people on the whole earth. That was before people understood what they do now about hygiene. It was before vaccines for the most part and medicine was much less effective. Nobody would have been asking the question of overpopulation. It wasn't a problem. I still don't think it's a problem. Birth rates are going down, quite radically actually in some countries. The problem is not our population is growing too fast. It's that the people we already have are not doing what's needed to make our stay on earth sustainable.

[SkyFlakes]

I think the most ethical way to reduce the growth of population is through educating everyone about this matter. I think, people who have a lot of children are the ones who is lack of the knowledge of what would be the effect of having a lot of children to the parents and also to the children. Most of the people who have a lot of children belong to poor class. This simply means that if we educate those people, we might get into reducing the population growth and it is done in an ethical way.

[Zurcermozz]

I do not believe in this topic. Humans are not so many as we think. Even if we were so many, why reduce for what? Many people think that food will not be enough in the future but it is not true. We have a lot of places where we can cultivate. Countries like Canada and Russia are actually empty. People can easily move there if there are nowhere to go. With science, we can easily plant anywhere. We are already eating modified fruits and vegetables. We are doing great. We do not need to kill people or to reduce the population.

I completely agree with you. There are so many places in the world that are just empty. I would actually say that most of the world is not inhabited by people. People really just group together in the big cities. Of course, you wouldn't actually have to kill people to reduce the population. It can happen naturally. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary. In terms of food, people are worried that we'll run out. Well I've heard that we actually through out about 50% of food that is produced! If we just fixed that problem, we could feed twice as many people!

I get your view. I have a follow up question, Does this mean that every place that humans have not occupied has to be occupied? what about other living species? And lastly, Don't you think that places where are not yet occupied by human are not that favorable for survivor in the long run?

Of course we couldn't possibly fill up every part of the earth. There's no need to do that either. There is so much more space. If people want, we can also just build taller. Theoretically every house or 2 or 5-storey building could be replaced with a 50-storey building or maybe even a 100-storey building. There are so many places left to inhabit. Take a look at some stunning images of how much of Canada is empty: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/17/canada-empty-maps_n_5169055.html. You can see her that 47 percent of the US is uninhabited: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607431/Want-away-Interactive-map-shows-staggering-47-PERCENT-country-currently-uninhabited.html. There are plenty of good places to live, if needed.

I respect your opinion but its not always about habitat , many country even lived beside polluted river , just to get a waste food so their family can eat, Too many children in a family is a crucial things to them, first the children can't go to school because of poverty, second the they don't have a house and if theyre going to relocate , it I's much harder to them to adopt where they will be placed.

[neal.gerard]

I respect your opinion but its not always about habitat , many country even lived beside polluted river , just to get a waste food so their family can eat, Too many children in a family is a crucial things to them, first the children can't go to school because of poverty, second the they don't have a house and if theyre going to relocate , it I's much harder to them to adopt where they will be placed.

Poverty is a completely different question. Of course, I realize that poverty has a big effect on birth rates. The poorer people are, the more they typically tend to have children. They need the children to work for them by selling something or working on the farm to get more money for the family. Birth rates go down as populations get more wealthy. The nice thing about rivers is that they move. To stop pollution in a river, you need to stop polluting it upstream. Typically, the more wealthy a country gets, the better they get at dealing with pollution. (I'm not sure about China, but it seems like they're at least making some efforts now.)

[Applechild]

Without being much of a religious person or sounding so. Population growth will not reduce. That is the reality. And it is so because as a Christian God Almighty has commanded that we should multiply, and replenish the earth. And He further said that none of His world will come back to him void, without accomplishing that which He sent it for. So now using ethical means to stop a divine mandate is futile to me. We can only try but at some point our methods will fail and the natural way as predestined will begin to work or take effect.

[BADecker]

People don't like to be forced to do anything. Force 'em to have kids, and they sill stop of their own free will.