Please explain what you mean. All animals breed, are you suggesting that humans don't have the same right as all other living creatures?

What do you mean by sustainable future?

Not all animals breed. Many animals die before they can accomplish that. Human beings are very successful as a species. Modern medicine, nutrition, and lifestyles mean that people, on average, live a long time, giving everyone plenty of opportunity to breed. For example, some people theorize that bad eyesight is a recent phenonmenon. Ancestors carrying the trait would have been at a serious disadvantage. But glasses fix that.

People with genetic diseases (eyesight is a little extreme) should not be allowed to reproduce as much simply because they are able to reproduce as much. One child for the most severe of cases would be fine. If you have a dominant p53 mutation, for instance, you should be able to have only one surviving child.

Our population is growing exponentially, and the problem must be remedied fast. The world's carrying capacity cannot currently support a population of 20 billion. Like Malthus predicted a long time ago (before the agricultural revolution), we are heading for disaster once more, this time at the limits of human potential. Our minds will be tested, and it is arrogant to believe we will prevail over nature once again.

P.S. Obviously the controversial point is, "Who decides who can have how many children." But I think that some kind of legal consensus could be reached. Even fairly fit individuals should not be able to reproduce like rabbits.

The point is that it is simply irresponsible to have more children than the world can handle.

[edit: the population problem is greater in developing countries. the genetics problem is greater here. fecundity in the US is already fairly low.]

I remember this argument in the 1970’s when ZPG was the buzz word. We were heading towards 3 billion people and the Earth could not sustain all of us. There will be mass starvation and horror that could easily be avoided if we stop breeding. Well we are at 6 billion and counting see any mass starvation?

Before ZPG there was Planned Parenthood. And before that was Adolf Hitler with is final solution. Before that was eugenics funny all of those things are supported by the democrat party. This makes me wonder.



How much can the world handle?

Let's find out.

Based on your answer you are not serious. You advocate reducing the population by draconian means with the goal of saving the world or some such silliness and you don’t even know how many is too many. Lets not put you in charge of any nursing homes okay.

Ok. To give you a number, I would say the world can support about 10 billion people. But that would mean a pretty cruddy life. Anyway, the problem in developed countries isn't really a population problem; its the problem that anyone can succeed. Developing countries account for most of the population problem. And who cares about them? You might think that is harsh. But just wait until you have to choose between feeding some poor African children and buying that new tivo unit. Suddenly, its "their" problem, not yours.

Developed countries already reduce their population, by non-draconian means. That's not my chief point, although it certainly is an issue.

The problem is I have heard this argument before, back when the population was hitting 3 billion. The Earth can not sustain three billion people, I was told. We had to cut down the population and since the developed nations are better equipped we should be the ones to reduce our population in order to lead the way to a better life.



I do not think it harsh to contemplate I just don’t see it happening in my lifetime or that of my grandchildren. America has always helped out its friends and enemies alike in times of need and most times to the detriment of our own people, but we did what was right rather than what was best for us.



Yes, one that is foolish when it comes to the strength and security of our nation. We kill off out children and replace the loss with immigrants that have no stake in the success of this nation.

See, this is why I didn't want to give a number. As soon as I do, I get the infinite human potential argument in return.



I don't know what to say except that I disagree. America only does what is best for America. There are a couple minor exceptions. For example, our country's religious beliefs lead us to make certain illgical decisions re
garding the Middle East. I am talking more about Israel than the Arabs, by the way.



Please... No one is going to attack us. No one wants to risk nuclear war, which is probably an inevitability that makes everything else unimportant. People have a bad habit of lickn' the wurld as good as they can.

Oh, you mean the fact that we have been hearing this tired argument for 30 years and have not seen the dire results that have been predicted. That is not an infinite human potential it is a fact that has disproved your theory.



The UN wanted the USA to guarantee the new Israeli since no one in Europe wanted to have anything to do with the Jews so they could get oil from the Arab states. It did not help them but they still support the Arabs more each day. They still have unrest and now they are being over populated by Arab immigrants that are voting as a block changing the secular laws to follow certain religious laws. You know the thing you say is bad when Americans try to do it.



Okay, you seem out of touch. I vaguely remember being attacked on September 11 2001, I also remember being attacked for 30 years before that. When people attack and kill Americans after they have declared war on America and we have yet to nuke them. Are you suggesting that the attacks we have suffered and the deaths of Americans over the past 30 years is unimportant or irrelevant?

No balanced power has attacked us, and when was the last time a formal power attacked us?

I just can't help but think of Penn & Teller's show on Showtime when I see stuff like this. Anybody else see that episode where environmentalists signed the petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide?

7 December 1941 Japan attacked us, it was the last time any nation state was stupid enough to declare war on America.

1949 thru 1989 the Soviet Union attacked us through surrogate states and groups. They were the ones to fund terrorist groups until they lost control of them in the late 80’s and were attacked by the groups they formed and funded. They tried to get out of the terrorism business. According to the head of the KGB at the time it was the only way to attack America and not have to suffer the consequences. They also funded the attack on our financial system in the 1980’s that caused a minor recession, had they better understood the capitalist system they would have done far more damage but the end result was the end of the USSR rather then the end of the USA.

Various Arab states picked up where the Soviet Union left off. With their oil money they funded attacks on Americans abroad up until 2000 when they lost control and were attacked by the groups they funded. In 2001 President Bush then changed our policy to include any state that supported or harbored terrorists to be treated as terrorist states. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq using that justification and the bad guys went black until they can find a new way to attack America.

Various terrorist groups that set up their own funding no longer needing nation states to support them and have gone wild ever since. The war is still going on since the 1970’s it is just in slow motion so you fail to see what they are doing but they are doing it and they are still trying to destroy America.

That is just a quick down and dirty list off the top of my head with out any research.



Yeah, I saw that and it took all of 8 seconds for me to realize the goal was to ban water the one thing we all need to survive all to save the planed and ourselves. Yes, those idiots gladly signed on to eliminate every living thing on the surface of the earth because their hearts are in the right place their brains just have not caught up yet.