Matheus does raise a point that is rarely discussed even here and virtually never by (American) politicos. The human footprint would still be problematic with a smaller global population, but it would be made vastly more bearable if we weren't multipying quite so fruitfully. I've seen estimates (possibly in The World Without Us?) of a global human carrying capacity at 500 million to 1 billion individuals- numbers which are unlikely to be reached through even the most heartfelt birth control campaigns. All the same, between a thoughtful, systematic reduction of population - including measures such as, yes, some people not having kids - and a grand Malthusian crash, I know which I'd vote for.
On 11/28/07, Mike Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All of the people who believed that they could help to save the planet > by not having babies lived their life span and died. The rest of the > world's population went ahead and had babies. As the genetic (and > cultural) lines of those believers in birth control perished, the human > population grew even faster. > > Mike Marsh > --------- > Matheus Carvalho wrote: > > ... to reduce her CO2 footprint. > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879 > >
