A comment on this web site addressed the unemployment problem. His solution, less people; people are a blight, the fewer of us the better. Additionally, the answer to unemployment was less people available to be unemployed. Less people is the gold standard solution to any number of problems. Not an uncommon view in the environmental community; whispered by some among friends, prevalent nonetheless; less people equals the solution.
Just a few comments in reply. Less people, to follow the thinking, would mean less unemployed but; won’t than also mean fewer actual consumers, less demand and thus fewer available jobs? Sounds like that’s really not the path to progress, sounds like an even deal at best, less of everything on a sliding scale downward as the developing world climbs the scale going in the opposite direction.
The short term tactical problem with ‘less people’ is how to get there? Short of all out war, global famine or a major nuclear event ‘less people’ takes time. If you need a short term solution you’re going to have to engage in organized murder on a massive scale to get there fast enough to make a difference. Oh, you say, consistent to the original proposition, ‘that’s not such a bad thing, if it happens; if it happens there will be…….‘less people’’. “I don’t want to, you know, like, you know, personally hurt anyone but, hey man, there’s too many people!”
A goodly portion of the world is on board with ‘too many people’; you’re winning the argument! Of course, there are consequences. In an ungodly small number of generations indigenous Europeans will have given way to the ‘let’s have a bunch of children’ crowd. You are of course aware that not everyone has been listening. But, let’s agree for the moment, there are ‘too many people’; even if you’re right, you’re talking to the wrong ‘people’!
The American birth rate is barely replacement value. In Europe a plurality if not a majority of women say that the ideal number of children is ‘none’. In Germany 60% of women say ‘none’. Eastern Europe is not much better. Russia’s birth rate is in the Gulag. Japan, no joy on the birth rate there; why do you think they’re gotten so good at making robots? So, goodly parts of the civilized world have already gotten on the “too many people” train.
In Europe the ‘let’s have a bunch of children’ crowd is Muslim immigrants, who as part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue enjoy all the rights of a citizen regardless of assimilation. If the political wheel is turned by potential active voters, able to organize, it began spinning in Europe some time ago.
Assuming that women are still required to produce children (shaky assumption) China might also have a problem as their ‘one child’ policy has produced lots of ‘valued’ male children and very few daughters. There are going to be a lot of frustrated Chinese men at some point in time or one truly massive State operated brothel! Or, how about a Chinese Army full of ; and I mean full of; frustrated, testosterone laden virgins? Scary thought!
High birth rates exist throughout in the Arab / Muslim world generally; good luck fighting back Islamic beliefs with the ‘too many people’ argument. My money is on Islam; 1.3 out of 6 billion people insistent on producing 4-6 children per woman. 1.3 billion Multiplied by that metric is a big positive number when 2-3 billion float along at bare replacement value or below. 1.3 Billion times 50% to factor in women, times 4 children quickly turns into 2.6 billion, not counting converts which, historically, accelerate as Islam advances. Eventually the 1.3 billion win and you can be assured that they won’t tolerate such ‘un Islamic’ thinking as ‘too many people’. Trust me; the Liberals will be the first to go as your assumptions of “equivalency” will turn on you with a vengeance. You may be well advised to keep your head down when the ‘let’s have a bunch of children’ crowd comes to town. Take heart, you did win the argument with the people who were listening.
Speaking of that, what’s up with ‘the people who were listening? They seem thoroughly depressed over the dire consequences of their very existence. Acute apathy, masked by a thin veneer of unthinking, emotional, guilt ridden views The problem with the ‘views’ is only one set of possible consequences are ever considered.
By the way, there are a few geographical considerations here as well. Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, portions of South America, and East Africa; all major enclaves for the ‘let’s have a bunch of children’ crowd; pretty good strategic outlay in my book.
“But, but, but, we’ll consume fewer resources.” That’s right depending on who ‘we’ is. China and India won’t listen; nor will the developing or agrarian world. Hell, India and China said no to global environmental standards, they know it will wreck their growing economies and they told you to go to hell, ever greater amounts of resources will be consumed as South East Asia reemerges. It is impossible to solve any number of your global environmental concerns without India and China.
But in the here and now, in the warm surround of the folks who were listening; Generalissimo Environmental Avenger; you win! Now please surrender!