The human population of Planet Earth is getting close to 7.3 billion:
- Decent wealth and resources to everyone
- Basic human rights to everyone
- Preservation of cultural diversity
- Allowance of intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity
- Preservation of biodiversity
- Ted Turner: 250-300 million people should be the about right for the world.
- Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute: we need 1.5 Earths to sustain present population
- Optimum Population Trust: we have 2.3 billion too many people already
- A 2001 UN report estimates a carrying capacity from 4 billion to 16 billion (which is typical for the UN, trying to please everyone)
- Anyone who tries to arrive at a reasonably high figure for how many people are ideal for our globe will get shown the Malthus error and success of the Green Revolution, where technology and other factors come into play.
- The combined Gross Domestic Products of Europe, U.S. and Canada will double by 2050, while the rest of the world will grow by a factor of 5, leaving Europe, the U.S. and Canada at less than 30% of the world's GDP--SMALLER THAN WHAT IT WAS IN 1820!
- We can wait for an Andromeda Strain (virus or something microbiological from outer space) to kill off most of us.
- Alien (macroscopic) attack from Mars or another Galaxy.
- Nuclear Winter, say, initiated by Israel attacking Iran, where Russia responds in support, bringing the USA into the fray, and through mistake, irrational action, stupidity or whatever, setting off a nuclear war where many of the 16,300 nuclear weapons are exploded.
- Quickly populate our Moon, Mars, asteroid, Milky Way Galaxy.
- World population of 2-3 billion to maintain a moderately comfortable lifestyle for all...but not until the 23rd century and beyond.
- We should acknowledge our dilemma and do something about it. However, if no consensus can be reached for something like global warming, good luck for population to be solved, considering the religious and cultural connotations.
- Unfortunately, they provide no further specifics with reference to solutions.
Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable…
“the incremental effort to transform eugenics into human genetics forged an entire worldwide infrastructure,” with the founding of the Institute for Human Genetics in Copenhagen in 1938, led by Tage Kemp, a Rockefeller Foundation eugenicist, and was financed with money from the Rockefeller Foundation. While not abandoning the eugenics goals, the new re-branded eugenics movement “claimed to be eradicating poverty and saving the environment.”
So there it is: the best way to influence the masses is to scientifically prove that Planet Earth was being jeopardized by too many people, and the solution was genetics for eugenics. Religious and cultural factors can be trumped by the need to best provide for a livable future world. Both the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have had some rather shameful past.
Matthew Connelly in 2008 wrote Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population:
...population control (specifically in India) was a necessity for the masses, adding that “it is not what they want, but what is good for them.”
Paul Ehrlich refers to mankind as a cancer upon the world, and we must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the excision of the cancer. There will need to be brutal and heartless decisions. The pain will be intense, but radical surgery gives the patient (humanity on Earth) the best chance for ultimate survival. But he never quite says exactly what to do.
Should foreign aid be linked to population control? Well, historically, that is exactly what the U.S. did:
- Said President Lyndon Johnson: I'm not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.
- President Richard Nixon: population control is a must and go hand in hand with aid.
Silent Spring in 1962, which launched the environmental movement, actually helped decrease population, as DDT was banned and malaria deaths increased. Then again, a less polluted world meant that more people lived longer, so this could have been a wash.
Bill Gates asking his fellow billionaires to help reduce world population. But his only financial support goes to vaccines and the like to, in effect, actually increase population.
Can nanotechnology and genetic engineering play roles? Artificial photosynthesis? Cost effective fusion? If anything, much of new technology will be utilized to increase population.
Population Control. I have no simple solution for population. Anything I conjure reminds myself of Adolf Hitler. or the smarmy need for dictated eugenics. My moral self cannot support those strategies. Sorry. But I'll yet adjust this posting someday when I get a revelation.