I guess I can't subscribe to this view.. having just a baby
myself recently :)
I think subscribing the problem to the population quantity is sort
of confusing a correlation with the cause.
In the whole history of mankind- the average number of babies
PER couple is probably far more than the current situation. Just
look at our grandparents, most of them stop at... 6-7? We stop at
1-2. The advanced technologies in medical, agricultural fields
simply meant out of the 1-2, more survive and survive longer. Thus,
population boom.
Now, the problem of environmental destruction is due ALSO to the
advanced technologies: that are not advanced enough to use but not
abuse. The worst of this is: the benefit of these technologies are
only enjoyed by a SMALL group of the entire population. It isn't
consumerism due to LARGE population. It is consumerism and wastage
by a much much smaller 'elite' piece of the population pie.
Sure, CHina contributes the most to global warming. India is
on the list too. BUT per capita, their contribution is
TINY. Instead its United States and Australia, that
contributes the TOP Co2 to global warming - and comparatively -
their population is much smaller.
So... population may MAKE the problem worse - but it isn't the
cause of the problem. I think what we need is .. to make a BIGGER
Portion of the population start being aware and conscious of the
wastage and damage.. (and as I say this, I am guilty of having the
TV on while typing on the laptop)... to recycle and reuse more.
THe problem isn't with the quantity of the population: It is
with the QUALITY of mankind now.
Yes, we can reduce our footprint but only by so much, because
every living person needs to food, water, transport and shelter.
And it doesn't help when people in rapidly-industrialising
countries aspire to the kind of lifestyle that is portrayed in the
developed world, and believe it's their right to attain it before
thinking about saving the planet.
