• Yes they should

    Take china for example, theyre still developing and part of the reason they aren't developed is their large population. They've had many famines and other issues due to their high population. The worlds population is still increasing. How will we feed everyone? Will there be enough resources? Will there be enough space?

  • Limited resources on the planet to sustain the human population

    The worlds population growth should be reduced in order to conserve the natural resources on the planet. Yearly more forests are cleared for farm land, more fishing is done in our oceans, and more garbage is piling up. As humans we cannot destroy the planet but we can destroy ourselves. I feel that population growth is a global issue and should be handled by the worlds governments. Education in developing areas on birth control, stipends and other incentives in more developed nations for families and youth to not have children. In my personal opinion there should also be child limits per family enacted to limit population growth. Assisted suicide for people who desire that option and more end of life options for the sick and elderly. It is a difficult and uncomfortable subject but one that needs to be discussed.

  • Resource Conservation and Climate Change

    An increase in the world population ultimately leads to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions especially carbon dioxide. If our global population increases on too large of a scale, these greenhouse gases will build up at an increasing rate and we will see the effects of global warming on an entirely new scale. As for the conservation of resources, there are many valuable resources on Earth that don't exist in an infinite amount. Unlike wind and air, these natural gases and fossil fuels can be used up if there are too many people clamoring over them. This is simply a tragedy of the commons. If there are ways to reduce population growth to a more sustainable level, why wouldn't we?

    As for the other side of the argument, many people suggest that with evolving technology, we may be able to increase food supply, come up with new ways to produce sustainable and clean energy. I don't think that because we CAN means we SHOULD.

  • We can do it the good way.

    Everything will be different but we don't want to do abortion or being moral because that would be bad, sinfully bad. But the only way to limit population growth is to be singal that was our decision just like back then it was Jon of acre's decision to be singal and she was a good saint. So you know being singal is a good way to start. That's why we to do it the better way.

  • We must have friendly technology lots of culture and less people.

    So you know I saw what happen to the farmland their begging to subdivided so we want it, stop. And we won't need flying cars but fusion power car even the city of Chicago, new York and Los Angolas can stop growing. So we won't need more high speed rail lines. But we hope It would be good in the time of crises.

  • I think just 7 billion people

    We think not just under 7 billion people but 7 billion would be enough. And we need the commercial fields in the Midwest to grow our food even the country family's in the east cost of the United states needs a bigger land for their farm or ranch. So we got enough people living on this planet today.

  • The building growth is destroying our planet!

    IT was very silly to worry about moral we are just doing the right thing not doing a communist thing. So there's over 7 billion people but it has to stay under 7 billion just for now on our planet is green and pretty. But no more urban areas. So we love both city and county.

  • A Recipe for Disaster

    For each extra person on the planet, land to grow their food and land for their home impacts upon our environment often displacing plants and animals. Taken with climate change we can no longer count upon our traditional 'food baskets' to supply this growing population. Add to all of this dwindling resources, and we should not only be limiting population, but have a declining population, as some developed populations are now doing - e.g. Japan. Overpopulated countries have always been those with the lowest standards of living, with depleted environments and polluted air and water. Anyone who cares about the future of their descendants is totally irresponsible having more than two children.

  • Limiting population growth is not enough! We must promote population reduction!

    No one seems willing to adopt this approach. Its implications can be hideous. If we do not take measures to reduce population humanely, the alternative is that the population will be reduced chaotically. Encouraging gay marriage and abortion are steps in the right direction, but they are not enough!

    We need to promote euthanasia as well. This is absolutely necessitated by the world population crisis. We should encourage compassionate euthanasia.

    We should also support subsidized sterilization. Fertile young people and their families should be offered stipends to submit to voluntary sterilization.

    Drastic circumstances call for drastic measures! No one seems willing to suggest these measures. When the population crisis reaches its peak, we will no longer have an opportunity to reduce population in a humane and orderly method. We will be unable to avoid an apocalypse!

  • Yes, exploding population in countries like India must be regulated

    Exploding population leads to more poverty. Population increases but raw materials doesn't increase like that, it'll be difficult for all these people to get jobs & lead a happy life. Population increase also put a lot of pressure on nature as more trees & forests will be cleared to make houses & infrastructures which in turn brings forth natural calamities like land slides & heavy floods during monsoon rains. Also vehicles will increase leading to more pollution.

  • There are no practical nor moral means to try to impose any arbitrary "limit" upon the natural increase of man. Let us GROW!

    Rather, countries should grow denser and denser with people, because more and more people would be glad to live. Countries should be commended for having very high and dense human populations, for helping the earth to somehow hold more billions of people. Human life is very important and sacred, so what we need is a denser planet, and not fewer people.

    Humans are highly adaptable, and with proper pronatalist attitudes and development, humans can both survive and thrive at extreme population densities, if ever need be.

    As a pro-lifer, I am very much for a greater spread of human life and a much stronger flow of babies into the world. Welcome the curious beauty of the human race naturally blossoming in size.

  • It is very dangerous.

    Population control is remarkably dangerous to a country. Look at China, for example. They have a massive block of middle aged people and a minuscule block of young men. The one child policy has resulted in a surplus of males because the male gender is the preferred gender in chinese culture. Thus, when a couple has their one and only child they will often abort the female baby in favor of a male. On an economical level, if China continues on it's current course, the so-called "4-2-1" problem will take effect.

    "One adult child was left with having to provide support for his or her two parents and four grandparents"

    This is a very serious problem that is already ravaging Japan. The large block of elderly people are being forced to work until they pass away because there children simply can't afford to support them.

    At they same time, many people in China don't actually follow the policy anyway and it is quickly becoming forgotten.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.