In message
"Jim Webster" wrote:


"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob writes:
Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!! there are only
two
countries that have tried to address the problem, India giving away
transistor
radios and China trying to limit size of families.
Why can't people see that reducing global population is the only answer,

How do you propose to do that, short of genocide? The best that we can
hope to achieve in the short to medium term is to reduce the rate of
increase.

I think that climate change may have a biofeedback mechanism, in that if it
brings about falling agricultural yields, this will lead to falling human
populations. Whether the populations that fall will be the ones that are
doing most of the polluting is doubtful, but famine of biblical proportions
should at least concentrate the minds, even of OK magazine readers

Jim Webster


The traditional method of reducing population is of course war. Once there
are insufficient resources to support the population we will fight over them.
This fighting will continue until the population is reduced sufficiently.

It's hard I know, but that is what will happen.

Of course the wars will result in even more pollution, perhaps even rendering
parts of the earth uninhabtable (as parts of Belarus are now). So the
population it can support is reduced even more.

But to believe that, you have to believe that Malthus was ultimately right!

Martin

--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the new RISC OS computer.