Valkie wrote on Jun 25
th, 2017 at 4:41pm:
Perhaps this has some merit.
Lol. Perhaps.
Quote:However it does not address the root cause (no pun intended)
The population growth will not slow or stop using the measures you have suggested.
No, you are wrong. It will. Thats why I suggested it when you asked for methods to slow down population growth.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/how-education-can-moderate-population-growth/
Quote:One of the most powerful tools in stemming population growth will be education, says Mark Montgomery, an economics professor at Stony Brook University and a researcher at the Population Council. “We’ve seen some astonishing transitions, especially in the 1970s in what were then poor countries where fertility rates fell when levels of education went up.”
Studies conducted by Mr Lutz and his team support this. The researchers found that, on average, uneducated Malian women gave birth to almost 7 children. For the better-educated, the number was about four.
“Education leads to lower birth rates and slows population growth,” he says. “This makes it easier for countries to develop. A more-educated workforce also makes poverty eradication and economic growth easier to achieve.”
http://www.nature.com/news/development-slow-down-population-growth-1.19415
Quote:Family-planning programmes are most effective where socio-economic conditions are improving. In particular, education of girls is a powerful brake on fertility. Educated women marry later, tend to want smaller families (in part, because the opportunity costs of childbearing are higher for these women) and are more capable of overcoming obstacles to their use of family planning. However, educated women must have access to contraception to act on their reproductive preferences. Family planning, education (of women and men) and socio-economic development are mutually reinforcing, and should be pursued together.
Quote:We have to slow down of completely stop population growth...NOW.
Better still, we should think about reducing the worlds population, not just in third world countries, but in all countries.
Why do we need 30, 40, 50 million people in Australia?
What is wrong with maintaining a comfortable 20 million?
Surely you can see the sense in what I say.
Less people = less pollution
less people = less pressure on the environment and resources.
Less people = a better place to live.
The only downside is for the rich multinationals and grubberments that feed off the taxes and money flowing from a pyramid scheme of ever increasing population growth and consumerism.
Greed before need
Money before common sense.
I dont disagree with much of this.