"In short, forget it. It's not going to happen. We are going to have to find a way to feed 10B+ people or go through the kind of extinction that hasn't been seen since the dinosaurs went."
It's this kind of either-or, black and white thinking that gets you into trouble and is why so many dismiss the environmental movement out of hand.
The simple fact here is that any kind of collapse scenario is going to be made far worse if we do not take immediate steps to reduce consumption. Just because we don't have a perfect solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do what we can. It goes without saying that a managed descent would result in a lot less suffering for everyone in general than if we are to throw in the towel and just let things run their course.
Another thing comes to mind. Just because some countries choose to not adopt a one child per family act is no big deal. It would work like this: some countries would adopt a one child per family act and would sanely reduce their consumption. Other countries would continue business as usual and when food shortages develop people will die from riots, starvation, etc. Either way population is reduced to a stable level. In short, if we don't reduce our numbers voluntarily nature will do it for us. On a global level, it will be a combination of the two. People will be a lot more willing to accept a one child-per-family act once shortages and rationing become a daily reality. A one child per family act is not even necessary in many affluent countries which are actually experiencing a decline in population. Why is this? When people become educated and attain a certain level of prosperity and gain access to birth control, they use it. So another part of the solution is to raise the prosperity level of third world countries - don't ask me how we do that, though - that will have to be its own discussion.
|