The world's population should be at most 50 million.

[onlinebiker]

Often people jump to 'murdering billions' when drastic population reduction is talked about, but proponents are usually talking about 'sterilizing billions', which is also problematic (because billions aren't going to volunteer to be sterilized); but at least it's not outright murder. Like I said, I can't think of an ethical way to accomplish it in a lifetime, and we're in a time crunch. I don't think it's going to be accomplished the 'easy way'.

The UN's predictions (about 9.6 billion people by 2050) are not based on projected resource availability. If we don't shift largely to substitutes, the most plausible prediction I've heard is that it costs more to extract oil than its worth in about 60 years. Under these circumstances, world population would start to drop drastically (the hard way, mainly famine). I personally think alternative energy and algae-based oil substitutes will let us stagger on, but I'm not sure those things will ever be as cheap as cheap oil, which in large part has 'fueled' our population growth over the last century. But so has cheap water, and demand for that will increase at a time when ground water tables are becoming depleted. And these are far from the only resources that will become more difficult or even impossible to obtain.

There are a lot of problems to be solved for 10 billion people to be possible for long. We're great problem solvers, but we only have to drop the ball on one for hundreds of millions or even billions of people to die amid terrible suffering. And Africa is likely to bear the brunt of it (as always, it seems).

There should be financial incentives to volunteer for sterilization.

I always figured if you have no kids - the government would pay " x". If you have 1 kid already, 1/2 " x", and so on.

I have been accused of trying to " breed out the poor".


Good!


I' ve news for you - the poor think it' s a good idea. Poverty sucks.