Our future?

[Workingman]

Whenever it does get mentioned in the comments sections of the media it is always met with accusatory replies mentioning genocide, euthanasia and the trite: "after you".

There is never any meaningful discussion about how, when and why it might be needed. Those of us who do mention it get accused as racists and baby killers and that is enough to close it down.

If these comments only came from those who claim climate change and environmental destruction are hoaxes they would be understandable, but they are not. Very often they come from otherwise intelligent and rational people and that, to me, is a big worry.

[Suff]

Almost all the people who take this view in the west have no clue as to the poverty and struggle uncontrolled population growth causes. Let alone the resource issue.

Perhaps if they understood that 2 more decades of this kind of growth and they will lack food because the uncontrolled growth is sucking food capacity out of the planet and they might start to get a clue.

But true to form, they fit the ethos of what Da Vinci said.

Some see, some see when they are shown and some do not see. In this case I would put that last category as some will not see for political reasons.

[Workingman]

Well said.

It is a big worry, if I am allowed to explain.

If every human being lived life as it was back in the stone age then on average we would all still need about 2.25 litres (4 pints) of potable water (fluids) and 1,300 calories of food every day, just to survive. We would then need extra clean water for hygiene purposes; shelter from the weather; and clothing. Those are the minimum physiological and biological necessities we cannot go without, and they have changed very little over the millennia.

In the 68 years that I have been on Earth the number of humans has trebled from 2.6 billion to 7.8 billion. That means an extra 6.76 TRILLION calories of food and 11.7 bn litres of drinking water (22.8 bn pints) - per day - and we would still be in cave man territory, yet many sensible people see it as being no problem.

Now throw in the cars, TVs, phones, throwaway fashion, CH and AC, cosmetics, planes, foreign holidays - the list goes on - and explain how there is no problem.

[Suff]

They don't need to explain, they just call you a murdering barbarian for daring to suggest that children should not be born, 10 or 15 to a couple.

Job done.

The fact that modern medical science made large families a disaster for the liveable biosphere never enters their heads.

It is not a debate, it is a monologue.

[cromwell]

In the 68 years that I have been on Earth the number of humans has trebled from 2.6 billion to 7.8 billion. That means an extra 6.76 TRILLION calories of food and 11.7 bn litres of drinking water (22.8 bn pints) - per day - and we would still be in cave man territory, yet many sensible people see it as being no problem.

Now throw in the cars, TVs, phones, throwaway fashion, CH and AC, cosmetics, planes, foreign holidays - the list goes on - and explain how there is no problem.

Will capitalism eat the world?
The more people there are, the more customers there are.
More "stuff" is needed. Big business sells "stuff". The more stuff they sell, the more money they make. The more customers (people) there are, the more money they make.
It's one reason why over population isn't spoken of.
It's also the reason why food security isn't talked of in the UK.
In this island we can't produce enough food to support the people who live here. Best guess is about 60%.
The nearest we got to 100% was when we still had rationing in the 1950's, when big back gardens were used to grow veg for the household.
Some government advisors don't see this as a problem.
Or at least, won't openly admit to it.

[Suff]

We could feed ourselves but everyone would need to become a vegetarian immediately and all land not in use for industry and homes would have to be turned over to vegetable production.

Also land which is currently non viable for crops would have to be improved and used for agriculture.

Not sure that everyone would like that.

In the 50's our farming equipment was little better than the traction engines of the steam age. Modern farming can feed us but we would have to lose choice.

Perhaps we should put that to the people? Choose overpopulation and have other parts of your life controlled or choose a smaller population with more freedom?