To think all money directed at green issues should be re-directed to hiking the population down?

[Hammy02]

Surely most green issues are caused by over-population of the planet? If we don't resolve the population explosion, food and water will run out long before any climate change will take hold?

The UK population is already on the decline. Fewer children being born than oldsters dying at the other end. Similar picture in other developed countries and the common denominator, apparently, is the level of female education. The more educated the women in a society, the fewer children they produce. Answers as to why that could be on a postcard... more health-savvy?, different lifestyle aspirations?, more affluence? So one benign way to reduce population would be a programme to improve the educational lot of women around the world

Still wouldn't 'solve' the climate change issue, however.

i like the idea of culling simon cowell

Very true, Filibear. I just meant we are changing it so that it won't be inhabitable for humans (or at least, not in the same way we live now).

No great tragedy, other species will evolve and the earth will survive, I'm just glad I will be long gone by the time it goes tits up (or, at least I hope I am).

"but the scientific consensus (Lovelock et al.)"

Lovelock as part of the scientific consensus?

Oh I SEE - this is another one of those benefit-bashing threads, just masquerading as a green issues one!

Sorry Tokyo, I thought I was on MN, not doing a PhD paper. Was just trying to use someone famous; I will forward you a full reference list asap!

Well DP has been reading a lot about this recently. He says that it's being forecast that global population will have declined to 2billion by the end of this century due to food shortage.

It is weird seeing Malthusian economics back on the global stage after all this time! He was big in the Victorian era and here we see his ideas again.

OP we can't let over-population turn us against one another and divert us from tackling those environmental issues we can influence.

If overpopulation is a major issue, then what has been shown time and time again is that the best way to reduce family size is to improve the education of women. What has been shown, time and time again, is that as women get better educated and have more opportunities (and better education around contraception etc.), family sizes decrease. Women don't get married off at 12/14 and have squillions of children. Also, raising the status of women so that parents don't keep on having children to get a son (who inherits) rather than a daughter (who can be, in some cultures, a huge financial strain - see dowries).

I agree AbsofCroissant. The gentlest way to influence population growth is probably to improve the lot of women, particularly in the third world.

cerealoffender

Why do people feel the need to have more than a couple of kids? To pay your pension for a start!

YABU, you know nothing of the actual issues involved, go read a bloody book.

I have 5 children. My brother has no children and doesn't intend to have any. My OH's sister doesn't have any children and doesn't intend to have any.
If we, my brother and OH sister all had had 2 children that would have been 6 in total. As it is we are 1 down with us having 5. iyswim.
In the end the number of children evens itself out.

Thank you Riven for understanding me!
It sounded very complicated when I typed it.

YABU and frankly a bit dim too.

Chil1234 is right. The population of western Europe is declining. My OH read a quote to me from a respected economics book the title of which escapes me - it suggested that at current rates, by 2050 the western european population will reduce by a third.

I don't think the OP was referring to the UK population, rather that of the whole planet. It wouldn't make much difference on a global scale to reduce the average family size in the UK.

The population growth is a problem in countries where the average family size is large, particularly if there are scarce resources. Even if we with our afluent western lifestyles consumed less of the earth's resources, it still wouldn't compensate for the numbers of new people being born. It's unsustainable and ultimately it will cause suffering, usually for the world's poorest.

Bagsy the domain name mumsofonechildandnomorenet.com

so we could stop putting any money at all into providing innoculations for childhood diseases and stop all spending on preventative health measures? that would wipe out a fair percentage of the population within a generation or 2 AND the savings could reduce the deficit.

YABVU

FindingMyMojo - that is what is already happening...the irony is that in developing countries poor people have more children so that there is a chance that one or two of them will reach adulthood...Poor people tend to have many children for various reasons but very few of them will live long enough to have much of a carbon footprint.

If we want to reduce child mortality the answer is education, contraceptives and healthcare for the poorest people in world - which will reduce birth-rate but increase life expectancy. It's a very simple answer of course Ha ha.

Focus on population reduction is IMO deflecting attention from the consequences of one's own choices.

My view is you could always give birth to the person who will contribute to solving or helping to live with climate change (NB unlikely to be me - my son is not two and already a petrolhead)

I hear you Tondelayo

then we'd just have all the greedy long living but sick and expensive old people to deal with.