4 ms·
> That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcar
by rospaya 9y ago
> That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of.
Education, better healthcare, better access to birth control? Making people have less children doesn't have to be at gunpoint or forced in any way.
- PeterisP 9y agoNo, this will not reduce human population to the extent to meaningfully influence climate change, and definitely not fast enough. If education, better healthcare, better access to birth control would reduce every place to a below-replacement rate such as Japan, it would still not make any large difference within this century. If you're talking about reducing population as a means of affecting climate change, then this means a larger/quicker decrease in population than what can be possible with reasonable means; if we'd somehow decide that we'd have to get to, say, 4 billion or below by 2100, then that requires either drastic reductions in reproduction or mass slaughter.