Population controls ‘will not solve environment issues’

Nov 4, 2014

By Matt McGrath

Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.

A worldwide one-child policy would mean the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Even a catastrophic event that killed billions of people would have little effect on the overall impact, it said.

There may be 12 billion humans on Earth by 2100, latest projections suggest.

Concerns about the impact of people on the planet’s resources have been growing, especially if the population continues to increase.

‘Can’t stop it’

The authors of this new study said roughly 14% of all the people who ever existed were alive today.


 

Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

29 comments on “Population controls ‘will not solve environment issues’

  • “We’ve gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic momentum. We just can’t stop it fast enough,” said Prof Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide.

    I commend the full article to the readers. With reference to a recent discussion in this forum on population, this is what I was talking about. Exponential population growth cannot be stopped through civilized means. But we have to stop it if we as a species are to survive. And don’t get me started on the collateral damage we will do to just about every other species on the planet except rats, flies and seagulls.

    Our future is not going to be all sweetness and light. Like a plague of mice in a wheat field, when we will hit the wall, when the resources are exhausted, we will die in our billions. And this is what makes me very angry. My beautiful, beautiful grandchildren might be part of this genocide.

    Or, we could choose to survive.



    Report abuse

  • Billy Connelly had the solution about right. He said if you could just convince everyone on the planet to eat just one other person you’d halve the population crisis overnight. His maths is a bit off there but the irony is that many a civilisation has ended up at the the cannibalism stage when in crisis.

    Seriously though, of course it won’t solve the problem overnight but is that really the point. Saving money won’t make you rich overnight either but that doesn’t mean it isn’t sound advice.



    Report abuse

  • Obviously population control would work if sufficiently drastic. All he is saying is a one-child policy will not be sufficient to save us. It will solve itself in the Malthusian way, or perhaps by AI thinning us.

    All other animals have population crashes when they have a runaway population growth. I see no reason to think humans should be an exception. I remember being fascinated as a child by the periodic booms and busts in the tent caterpillar populations. They would get to the point where nearly every alder tree (their favourite food) had just skeleton leaves with the veins but no green.



    Report abuse

  • Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.

    Of course it won’t! It will only solve about 20% of the problems.
    The excessive consumption, inefficient use of resources, and reckless, industrial scale environmental damage, need to be tackled along with population issues to achieve sustainable systems.



    Report abuse

  • Roedy Nov 5, 2014 at 4:37 am

    All other animals have population crashes when they have a runaway population growth. I see no reason to think humans should be an exception.

    The reasons why humans can escalate problems to a planetary scale before crashing the population, is because of versatility in moving to new foods and resources, after exploiting previous ones to destruction, along with global immigration and global transport of materials.
    There are still local crashes (famines, disease, wars) where the political, finance, and transport structure, does not deliver this, but a big crash is eventually inevitable, if we continue to push the boundaries of planetary support, destroy habitats, and eventually run out of other species to displace!



    Report abuse

  • I suspect this is another case of journalists yet again misreporting what a reports conclusions are.
    What it should say is “population control ALONE cannot prevent environmental catastrophe” because any way you look at it population control is necessary because whatever else you are doing you are storing up a bigger problem.
    Is it just me or is there an implicit assumption that if a problem can only be solved in the long term we shouldn’t bother? As Tim Minchin sang “Fuck the pope!”.



    Report abuse

  • Hold on a second! The population is not growing exponentially. We do, though, have to deal with living in a world at the limit of the population curve, about 12bn, which Hans Rosling glosses over somewhat.

    Spoiler for the video, in case you can’t watch it (rot13 encoded)

    Bar bs gur vagrerfgvat cbvagf Ebfyvat znxrf vf gung zber rqhpngrq crbcyr ner zber yvxryl gb trg xrl snpgf nobhg cbchyngvba naq tebjgu jebat.



    Report abuse

  • This is true. A small group of people setting up a polluting mine or factory, or even a moderately sized lone country doing the same, could certainly cause severe local damage (e.g. to water supplies or by creating local acid rain), but it would be relatively manageable. Multiply it to several large and wealthy countries, however, and you’ve got something more serious on your hands.

    But then time must also be a factor as well: a year of industrial pollution is less of a problem than a century of the same. Honestly, I just see it as multifactorial, like needing a fuel source, heat, and oxygen to produce fire. The focus then falls on how to deal with each of these factors in turn to control the fire, rather than pinpointing “the” factor (though that doesn’t mean all factors contribute equally).

    Considering the biggest producers of, say, greenhouse gases tend to be China, North America, Europe, and Australia, (i.e. the wealthier nations), it’s interesting that these places also tend to have the lower fertility rates, which is consistent with the general observation that families in developed countries tend to have fewer children. That suggests to me that overpopulation is a less severe issue than overconsumption in the long-term, at least unless the developing world starts adopting the same pattern of low fertility and high consumption.



    Report abuse

  • MrDNA.
    I suspect this is another case of journalists yet again misreporting what a reports conclusions are.
    What it should say is “population control ALONE cannot prevent environmental catastrophe

    What are we to make of this article? Is the implication that any attempt to limit the growth of the population will have a minimal impact so why bother? If no attempt is made to curb fertility, things are going to be a lot worse! Experts have been broadcasting a catastrophic future for a long time.



    Report abuse

  • 12
    Lorenzo says:

    I’m not entirely sure that a world-scale population control would be even necessary, given the demographic evolution of Europe: in the old world, the population is actually declining because of a spontaneously arisen one-child-per-couple measure. And, as the desire for higher education increases and the resources to provide just that increase as well, the one-child-per-couple will enforce itself.

    Where you’d “need” to enforce it is where you wouldn’t be able to, simply because you can’t neither reach the population nor check whether the restriction is actually effective. So, I’d say, let’s get cracking with a world-scale education programme: the population control will arise spontaneously.

    But that wouldn’t be the largest benefit of such a large scale education programme: with proper education comes awareness of the efficiency and sustainability issue -because in what everybody would call “good education”, the issues concerning us living in a finite environment are inescapably taught. And the value of efficiency.

    Estrema ratio, all we have to do is to wait, I suppose… I’m thinking the prey-predator problem (with “the environment” playing the role as pray, here). This problem is described by the Lotka-Volterra equations… what we are doing now, it seems to me, is moving to an orbit which is further and further away from the equilibrium center. Which means that, by following it through, there will be a substantial and rather sharp population decline -and it doesn’t sound like fun.



    Report abuse

  • Thanks very much for this. It is a very clear exposition of the facts of the case (Though the sound balance on the filmed inserts had me straining a little.)

    Take home one. Lift the very poorest out of extreme poverty so they can engage in health benefits, education and family planning. Take home two. The onus is entirely on the richest billion to show how to live sustainably.

    I repeat my assertion that this latter is already doable now. The technologies are quite good enough to be installed now, over the next generation, if we could only stimulate the rather long term investments needed (and admittedly thereby defer some of our jam now for our kids later).

    As a capitalist I feel I have to confirm that property is indeed theft. Rental, however, is quite another matter.



    Report abuse

  • Take home two. The onus is entirely on the richest billion to show how to live sustainably.
    I repeat my assertion that this latter is already doable now.

    I concur. It is doable. But will we/they do it. The denizens of this forum are more likely to “Do It”. But what about the recently elected Republicans in America? Having listened to their electioneering over the past few months we’re on a highway to hell. What about the great unwashed masses, who’s highlight of intellectual effort is critiquing the results form Whose Not Got Talent – Local Franchise. Most of the homo sapiens on this planet haven’t got a clue about this stuff and even if they did, wouldn’t act on it in case it meant they couldn’t continue their current lifestyle. We, the denizens of this forum live in a tiny bubble of rational discussion. As I move through society, I hear absolutely nothing that gives me any confidence that we even know there might be a future threat to our grand children.

    My point is, we have solutions, but we won’t implement them, because we’ve evolved to only think in short term chunks. The next meal. Not over the horizon survival threats. We can’t comprehend a threat greater than three months out. Burning fossil fuels is a test of my contention that we will not act. Why haven’t we closed the coal mines and oil fields. Why hasn’t it been done. Because some rich person will loose money. And while money is the only decision maker on the planet, we won’t act.



    Report abuse

  • Try this test. There is not one environmental problem on the planet that isn’t either directly, or indirectly caused by over population.

    We might look at fossil fuels as a problem, but its not the burning of fossil fuels that is the issue, it’s the number of people burning fossil fuels that is the problem. Destruction of the Amazon. Fishing resources. Mass extinction of non human species.

    I invite submissions of environmental problems that are not caused by over population.

    I think Lorenzo has summed it up succinctly below.

    This problem is described by the Lotka-Volterra equations… what we are doing now, it seems to me, is moving to an orbit which is further and further away from the equilibrium center. Which means that, by following it through, there will be a substantial and rather sharp population decline -and it doesn’t sound like fun.



    Report abuse

  • Lorenzo Nov 5, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    Estrema ratio, all we have to do is to wait, I suppose… I’m thinking the prey-predator problem.

    In the USA they are still supplying 80% of antibiotic sales to animal feed-stock suppliers, for use on animals which are not sick, to compensate for for poor hygiene and to boost growth.
    If antibiotic resistance continues to build up, and countries like some in Africa are too useless to organise quarantine arrangements, while global transport continues distributing invasive species as usual, waves of pathogens could crash the human population explosion.

    Monsanto could also leak a few genes and accidentally engineer herbicide resistant weeds – just to help the process!



    Report abuse

  • My point is, we have solutions, but we won’t currently implement them, because we’ve relapsed into using capital with the need for increasingly rapid return rates and investment cycles. We got it righter once but with the invention of sexier, invest from the hip, money usage and vacuous “financial instruments” its difficult to be tempted back into our Victorian visionary ways…

    Except legislation dis-favouring short-termism and several other banking and investment reforms, much tougher waste penalties, and circular economy incentives can make the changes in business behaviours we need. About ten or so tweeks to the way we use capital and buy and pay for, or otherwise get to use, products will better kick start a truly sustainable societal culture…

    I find the denizens of this forum more reluctant to do things eco than the great bulk of business people I meet on a daily basis for whom this stuff, in part or in whole, is their economic future.

    Things will be bad. But we can work to make them less bad. Hand wringing, though, is worse than useless. Along with my Betterism over idealism I will join with Hans Rosling in being a Possiblist over being an optimist (or a pessimist!). Wring away but in the end you’ll need to stop and roll up your sleeves and join the rest of us actively doing things, or figuring out possible solutions…come what may.



    Report abuse

  • Can I just say that the great unwashed masses are in the hands of the councils. They demand, through necessity, the lowest running costs and legislation from the EU demands the lowest levels of pollution. We have been fitting condensing boilers for years and Walthamstow had a massive project for solar panels. They drive efficient cars, again out of necessity. Not fully up to date but the hand-me-downs will work their way down to them. The problem is the rich from Chigwell, and the likes, who drop off their little darlings in four by fours and then make their way to the gym while their heating burns away at home. In the UK anyway.



    Report abuse

  • My point is, we have solutions, but we won’t currently implement them,

    I agree we have solutions. But to convince me, you need to spell out the system of politics that will cause these solutions to be implemented. How, in a democratic free enterprise world, will we implement the urgent solutions, fast enough, to allow for a soft landing on population. Democracy cannot deliver hard decisions, because we the voters, will only vote for things that benefit us. We rarely vote for self inflicted pain without a massive fear induced slap in the face. And the GOP doesn’t even think there’s a problem so they will do nothing in the near future.

    About ten or so tweeks to the way we use capital and buy and pay for..

    Again I agree. But which politician is going to get it through parliament. “Vote for me. I am going to put the world through a massive economic revolution that will cause everyone pain.” No one will vote for this. Currently only China with a command economy is able to act fast enough, as they are rapidly doing with moving away from coal to renewables. We in the west are currently rule by economics, which has a short term focus on swift return of capital. That is the M1 to the population cliff. Who is going to vote for a totally circular economy, which I endorse wholeheartedly, when things will cost more. The great unwashed won’t vote for it, let alone even understand the concept or the consequences. Can democracy deliver a rapid and painful change. I don’t think it can. So what is the politics that will deliver.

    So if I could crystallize the difference in our stances, I concur with your solutions and I am an activist in Australia promoting the problem, and the solutions, but I don’t see a political path for forcing them on the planet quick enough to achieve nirvana.

    I suspect we will need a slap in the face and a stumble over the cliff before we will act. My fear is that we will have pass a non reversible tipping point and will go through another mass extinction. That would just be stupid, to self destruct because we want to make a profligate non renewable profit.



    Report abuse

  • One thing I find odd are politicians saying the birth rate is too low. They provide incentives to increase it. They demand faster immigration. Here in Canada the Harper government is about to offer about $1000 per month per child incentive and an income averaging for the rich to average their incomes with unemployed children.

    A lot of it has to do with race. What they mean when they say the birth rate is too low is that the birth rate of white protestants is too low to maintain the same mix.



    Report abuse

  • but I don’t see a political path for forcing them on the planet quick enough to achieve nirvana.

    So what? If you are in a car heading for a brick wall, you don’t try and brake anyway? Lessening the impact is always worthwhile. Besides arguing for reform in banking and economic systems to discourage short term gambling is entirely sellable to a big section of right wingers (the people we most have to reach). Most would be very happy not to have their pension funds gambled on zero-sum tricking of wealth out of others. Increasing the opportunities for investment in high value, cash stream businesses like smart infrastructure and modular luxe products needn’t push the AGW button all the time. You effect standards changes as much if not more by pointing to stability and wealth generation.

    I suspect we will need a slap in the face and a stumble over the cliff before we will act.

    So we ‘ll wait for that huh? No. Of course we won’t. Not saying a great many catastrophes won’t befall us, but we need focus and detail (every part of which will be inadequate on its own.) We need to examine a concept like very high performance long-lived modular car leasing/ car mortgages. Favouring long lived high performance vehicles can simply re-arrange how existing players might earn differently from the business, whilst slashing the amount of manufacturing and wastage. and halving or quartering oil usage and embodied energy usage. The one billion who do all the polluting now can drive F1 bodied mercs and invent a new model for truly wealthy living. Argue for legislation to favour high performance, uber safe, openly modular cars. Define a time scale over 10 and 40 years for its staged implementation. Argue that this can bring more wealth generating work into the locality and reduce import dependency. Argue that this opens up the car industry to local innovation from smaller businesses. Argue that all this further reduces the political costs of energy dependency. Simply arguing for making things better using ideas like open modularity helps us. Instead of seeing circular economy measures as planet saving (merely) and “virtuous” we should see them as much as life quality enhancing. Legislating for services rather than products gets triple whammy from technology. By enclosing total life utility and impacts of a product with a single company/entity quite naturally technology will be used to not simply drop product cost but to diminish all costs of the product, consumptions, reliabilities, and end of life recoupment.

    All of this stuff has reason to happen other than AGW resource use mitigation. We can sell it now on its own merits and, hey, it adds to lessen the crash and gives a model for sustainable living after…



    Report abuse

  • 22
    Lorenzo says:

    If antibiotic resistance continues to build up […] waves of pathogens could crash the human population explosion.

    What’s really surprising, at least for me, is that with the billions of humans out there, no organism is really exploiting this “niche” intensively -as cats may exploit the rodent population in a farm yard. Even things like malaria are (in relation of the total human population) not very pernicious, if you keep in mind that it takes fractions of the population in the order of 10^-3… this even before coming to the massive selective pressure on the pathogenic bacteria due to the abuse of antibiotics.

    This means, of course, that there’s an open niche and, in biology, open niches don’t remain open for long.



    Report abuse

  • Lorenzo Nov 6, 2014 at 8:26 am

    If antibiotic resistance continues to build up […] waves of pathogens could crash the human population explosion.

    What’s really surprising, at least for me, is that with the billions of humans out there, no organism is really exploiting this “niche” intensively -as cats may exploit the rodent population in a farm yard.

    I think modern medicine is beating them back at present.

    Some like Spanish Flu, Bubonic Plague, or Smallpox etc introduced to the Americas by Spanish explorers, ran rampant in the past, but in ecological balance, a pathogen which exterminates its host species, goes extinct – if it can’t jump species, evolve into less virulent strains, or wait for the host’s numbers to recover.



    Report abuse

  • Unfortunately, the way this article is written, it sounds like we don’t need to bother with population control. It is still absolutely necessary for the long term, it just won’t have a lot of effect in the short term.



    Report abuse

  • FROM THE BBC ARTICLE
    The scientists said the issue of population and its impact on global consumption was often described as the “elephant in the room” FROM T- a problem that the world ignores as it is politically and ethically difficult to tackle.
    But the research shows that curbing numbers will not deal with environmental challenges in the short term.
    “Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term,” said Prof Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania.
    “Our great-great-great-great grandchildren might ultimately benefit from such planning, but people alive today will not.”
    As a result of this long-term impact, the world should focus on curbing consumption and designing ways to conserve species and ecosystems.
    “Society’s efforts towards sustainability would be directed more productively towards reducing our impact as much as possible through technological and social innovation,” says Prof Bradshaw.

    As Lilly Tomlin said, “things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.”

    The polar propositions in this debate are “long-term” and “short-term” The terms have a psychological impact on the anthropocentric mindset because of species-specific life expectancies limited to several decades. Thus a war, an election cycle, a university education, raising a child within time frames of 5 to 20 years all take a huge bight out of our lives. Moreover we tend to calculate time with reference to how many “good” years we have left. Many souls on the thread have probably fretted over having not that many years left.

    Consequently we are easily deluded into reducing complex longitudinal challenges into that cliche “within the lifetime of my children and grandchildren” as though we were talking about cosmological or geographical timelines. Even though Homo sapiens is a young species which started to emerge from Homo erectus and other Homo branches between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago, why do we nonetheless regard a century or two as “long-term” with respect to species survival? In connection to the problems under discussion, we must think in relation to the long-term. There is no alternative.

    A brief example of how binary thinking about long-term and short-term turned to bight us in the butt. In 1990, climate scientists proclaimed the crisis of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission which must be counter-attacked with the resources commensurate with those mustered in WWII against the Axis if we were to avert a global catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. We cleared our throat, some signed the Kyoto Protocols, and then we did..well, nothing. Some official projections gave humanity 30 to 50 years to turn around greenhouse gas emissions or suffer doom. Then a funny thing happened. The clock actually continued to tick and 25 years passed while carbon emissions INCREASED 61%. Scientist began to extend timelines out from 2015 to 2030, 2050 and beyond for limited emission-reduction goals to be achieved.

    People on this thread and in the broader environmental movement began to announce that victory over fossil fuel pollution would have been achieved with carbon neutral fuels and technology -production and consumption- years ago had it not been for THE CLIMATE SCIENCE DENIERS, their political allies, corporate interest groups and lobbyists. It was the well-intentioned but impotent tactic of creating a scapegoat. In another more violent era in history, many might have inflicted a Krystal Nacht on the deniers by breaking windows in their homes and shops.

    The article reflects many fallacies which I hope to touch on later. For now, I would recommend cultivating a long-term mindset rather than worrying about the short-term to mid-term. The long-term is all there is.



    Report abuse

  • ***Passage from Article:

    If China’s much criticised one-child policy was implemented worldwide, the Earth’s population in 2100 would still be between five and 10 billion, it says. ( Inexplicably, should it be the case that the number settles around 5 billion, why are the authors not celebrating the fact that the figure represents 3 billion less people than what we can expect in 2030?)

    Pertinent to the hypothesis, the researchers are projecting what would happen if every woman in the world would have no more than one child during her reproductive years between age 15 and 45. Perhaps, they wished to stipulate a ramp-up period of 30 to 60 years for implementing the policy but no such stipulation is mentioned.

    In order to stabilize a population with no growth or decline, every woman must have around two children on average. Simply put she must replace herself and her partner. (actually the replacement rate in developed countries is slightly higher at 2.1 but the replacement figure “2′ is stipulated for mathematical clarity).
    Obviously if every woman reduced lifetime fertility to one child, the population would be cut in half every generation. A population of 1,000 comprised of 500 women and 500 men would procreate a second generation of 500, a third of 250, a fourth of 125, a fifth of 63 and so on. Over the course of 120 years (4 thirty-year generations) the decline would eliminate 94% of the original 1,000 level.

    The researchers focus on the demographic phenomenon that prolongs population growth in absolute numbers while postponing the onset of contraction after replacement or sub-replacement birthrates are achieved. The phenomenon, called “population momentum” is driven by past high fertility characterized by large numbers of women entering their reproductive years. Such populations have an age structure disproportionately “bottom” heavy” with children under the age of 15. ( Children under 15 represent 43% of Nigeria’s population.) For some decades countries will continue to grow in absolute numbers because of larger numbers of young and more slowly aging women having fewer children. Young mothers and younger grandparents living alongside their offspring will have a temporary cascading effect on population growth until mortality starts to wipe out these younger generations and replace them with aging and shrinking older generations.

    About 60 years after the one child policy takes effect, the opposite dynamic will emerge. Depending on various mortality rates taking a toll on every age cohort -more people dying at greater rates in developing nations- populations will rapidly fall to the level in the year the policy took effect. Once equilibrium is achieved total population numbers will successively drop by half each generation thereafter against the index of the stable population.

    Curiously, the researchers project a range for world population of between 5 billion and 10 billion people by 2100 without showing the variant models. They are presenting readers with an incredible variance of 5 billion people. What they don’t tell readers is that wherever the stabilized figure settles that it will be cut in half every generation ( over 20 to 30 years) thereafter under a one-child fertility regime. Assuming, for example, that world population stabilizes at 6 billion by 2100, It will fall to 3 billion by 2130, 1.5 billion by 2160 and 750 million by 2190. The study just doesn’t make sense unless the reader is alarmed by the phrase “in your lifetime.”



    Report abuse

  • Curiously, the researchers project a range for world population of between 5 billion and 10 billion people by 2100 without showing the variant models.

    But what if the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is 1 billion, and there is an urgent need to shrink to that population. A one child family policy will still put us through hell before we, or if we emerge from the other side. How would you implement 1 child per 12 women, which is what is required to rapidly make humans long term sustainable.



    Report abuse

  • There is some medical negligence, and an apparent cowboy operation here, but it does show that measures are being taken to curb population and associated poverty!

    Eleven Indian women have died after undergoing botched sterilisation surgery at a government-run health camp in the central state of Chhattisgarh.

    More than 50 others are in hospital – at least 20 are in a critical condition following the tubectomy operations.

    Officials deny negligence. Four health officials have been suspended.

    State-run sterilisation camps are held to curb India’s 1.3bn population. Most of those operated on are women – many poor and often paid to be sterilised.

    The tubectomies were carried out on Saturday in Pendari village in Bilaspur district.

    Villagers say 83 women – all between the ages of 26 and 40 – were operated on in just six hours by one doctor and his assistant.

    Reports say the women started complaining of pain and fever, soon after being operated on. A relative described the conditions at the clinic as appalling.

    “They just operated on them and left them. It’s a desolate place, there are no facilities there,” DR Shinde told the Associated Press.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-29999874



    Report abuse

  • “We’ve gone past the point where we can do it easily, just by the
    sheer magnitude of the population, what we call the demographic
    momentum. We just can’t stop it fast enough,” said Prof Corey Bradshaw
    from the University of Adelaide.

    Italy seems become more and more the Cinderella of the Occident in all the benchmarks, but certainly Italy has no fault in the demographic catastrophe, its birth rate is about 1.3.
    Strangely enough the Church seems powerless on this issue. In spite of its “grow and multiply” the Italians were careful. (So the Church tries to use the anti-abortionists.)

    In some ways the Italians seem to own the wisdom of some characters in the film “Vera Drake”.
    As the fiancé of the daughter of Vera Drake, Reg, says in that film, if you can’t feed your children you can’t even love them. But …

    And here seems to come into play a paradox.
    The article reads:

    As a result of this long-term impact, the world should focus on
    curbing consumption […]

    But, only after the so-called economic miracle in the 60s the Italians moderated their birth rate, because the parents fear less welfare for their children.
    But before you have the fear to reduce the welfare of your children you have to have that welfare.
    So the poor populations will continue to do many children because the poor people have no fear to reduce the welfare of their descendants.
    It is possible that if you reduce the welfare of the “rich” populations they begin to do more children. In fact, in many cases, the poorer Italians do more children.

    Another great problem is represented by some religions that promote high birth rate to win the race with the other religions.

    Because “We’ve gone past the point where we can do it easily” to stop the preachers will not bring much relief “just by the sheer magnitude of the population”, but, at least, they will not do more damages.

    In a certain sense, also a myopic use of the science has its responsibilities. That myopic use of the science is due partly to the lack of a holistic vision of the same scientists and partly to the lack of possibility for the scientists of moderating the avidity of those who apply the scientific knowledge in the daily life. That is, enterprises, politicians and finally the individuals.

    So, almost everybody have to do self-criticism.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.