posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 07:38 PM
I see what you're getting at. I agree that much of the underdeveloped world could benefit from social reform. At the same time, we have much to learn
in conservation and sustainability from them.
What your plan doesn't recognize is that those third world nations are not the ones using up our resources. They eat what they provide for
themselves, when they get to eat at all. They use the leftovers for other purposes. They don't throw out a chicken bone that still has half the
chicken on it because "the skin was the best part anyways" or "the meat's a little dry."
It's the developed nations with smaller families but bigger appetites that are sucking the lifeblood out of our planet. If we, as the "civilized"
nations, were to drastically decrease our footprint then we will automatically make room in our small world for others.
Reducing birth rates will not decrease our footprint, not one bit. It will merely keep it the same. Especially by your plan; it will do us no good
whatsoever to decrease the birth rate of those who are not causing the problems.
Population control in "developed" nations will fail, because whether China's plan was ill-concieved or not, it's the only way you can effectively
regulate something like reproduction. People follow laws all the time, agreed, but people break laws all the time as well.
But if we merely try to stop having too many children, we will fail miserably. The world will only sustain its current population for a short while
longer. Reduce human birthrates if you wish, but we will still leach this planet dry as if over 6 billion people where living on it.
If we, as individuals, were to cut our environmental footprint in half and lead the world to follow our example; and if we do so unanimously and
succeed in that goal, then the world would only feel the impact of 3 billion people. If every 20 years we get another billion people, we would still
only be increasing the footprint by 500 million's worth.
That means it would take 40 years to increase our footprint by a billion of today's peoples' worth. In order just to get back to where we are now in
terms of resource consumption, it would take 120 years! And by then, we'll have even better abilities to enhance sustainability.
Wow... a 50% cut in resource consumption. It's a big goal. It might look out of reach because getting that many people to cooperate with
sustainability efforts sounds difficult. But if it sounds impossible, it's because you are one of the ones who does not want to