Humans have broken the fundamental law of sustainability.
There are simply just too many humans. All of our other problems derive from that.
And yet the solution is relatively simple. Restrict the number of babies to "One per Woman" until we get down to a world population of around one billion.
The one child per woman is a lot more practicable that half a child per person. It's very evident when a woman has had a child. At that point, the woman would have her tubes tied. When a generation of adults can only replace half of their numbers, the world population would drop rapidly as the older generations died off naturally and fewer children follow on. That negates the need for mass murders or wars of extermination.
As the population drops, less CO2 is produced because there is less transport used, Less fish eaten so stocks start to recover, less underground water used so underground basins start to refill, and cities become smaller so more vegetation grows to suck out even more CO2 from the air.
Within about 3 generations, say about 80 years, the world population could reach sustainable numbers again.
I am not disagreeing with you about population modeling. Altho I don’t have the numbers with me right now, from my earlier calculations, it would be 150 years to stabilize world population at the carrying capacity of one billion.
But I think it’s better to have half a surviving child per person(rather than one child per woman. we don’t have the time to deal with the definition of ‘woman’)for the sake of genetic diversity. And this right to procreate should be non-transferable. (No one can buy or sell the right to procreate. Adoption exempt).
I would like to amend that to ‘1/2 surviving biological offspring’/person.
If we are going to reduce population drastically, then genetic diversity is important for species health and survival.
And all this assuming that we don’t indulge in tech like artificial embryos or create babies with pluripotent cells. It is important to find ways to preserve genetic material and gestation tech for said genetic material.
Having said that…I believe that the first cloned humans are already alive and likely adults now. I refuse to believe or accept that countries that have scant regards for global ethical constraints will restrain themselves from exploring reproductive tech.
6 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 29.5 ms ] threadThere are simply just too many humans. All of our other problems derive from that.
And yet the solution is relatively simple. Restrict the number of babies to "One per Woman" until we get down to a world population of around one billion.
As the population drops, less CO2 is produced because there is less transport used, Less fish eaten so stocks start to recover, less underground water used so underground basins start to refill, and cities become smaller so more vegetation grows to suck out even more CO2 from the air.
Within about 3 generations, say about 80 years, the world population could reach sustainable numbers again.
But I think it’s better to have half a surviving child per person(rather than one child per woman. we don’t have the time to deal with the definition of ‘woman’)for the sake of genetic diversity. And this right to procreate should be non-transferable. (No one can buy or sell the right to procreate. Adoption exempt).
I would like to amend that to ‘1/2 surviving biological offspring’/person.
If we are going to reduce population drastically, then genetic diversity is important for species health and survival.
And all this assuming that we don’t indulge in tech like artificial embryos or create babies with pluripotent cells. It is important to find ways to preserve genetic material and gestation tech for said genetic material.
Having said that…I believe that the first cloned humans are already alive and likely adults now. I refuse to believe or accept that countries that have scant regards for global ethical constraints will restrain themselves from exploring reproductive tech.