Discussion of overpopulation really is a taboo. Even the most ardent environmentalists hardly ever mention it, while pro-growth economists always believe more is better.

For those of you who will still be here 43 years from now, you are projected to be living in a world with about 3 BILLION more people than at present! I can't even imagine the impacts of that many more people on the planet.

Finally, for those who wring their hands about the consequences of a deliberate, controlled policy to reduce population (which will never actually happen, of course, as humans are totally incapable of such collective action), it is worth considering the alternative: uncontrolled population reduction.

We like to think we are somehow outside of nature, but the kinds of forces we can readily recognize in other animal populations are at work on ourselves. We are destroying our environment. We are raising stress and competition levels, which promotes intra-species killing, something easy to do as we are already a paranoid, war-like species. And the more humans there are, the more we become a reservoir for other animals (microbes, viruses) to exploit.

I sometimes wonder if some more advanced species is recording all this as a history lesson? Probably not ... they probably have better things to do.

Actually, let's consider uncontrolled population reduction.

Presuming, of course, that population reduction becomes necessary (which is not a certainty). In such a case, the population will be reduced by war and disease.

Or, to put it bluntly, other people's populations will be reduced. I live in the U.S., the most militarily and medically advanced nation on Earth. When it comes down to someone's population being reduced, myself and my fellow citizens have the edge. We're the ones who will be winning the wars and surviving the diseases.

So what is our incentive to voluntarily reduce population?

BTW, I like your screen name.

Discussing the population issue is indeed touching the third rail yet it is an important part of the puzzle. It does bring a lot of issues into the equation however. The pope and right to life types won't like it. The paranoid types who worry that people of color are out breeding us won't like it either. It also means that the practice of absorbing quantities of cheap immigrant labor that have subsidized economic growth will be called into question, particularly since "the average American produces some 20 tones of carbon a year while some of those living in areas of the world with the fastest growing populations".

Nevertheless, I am not sure what alternative we have. I won't be around in 43 years but as someone else aptly put it: "There's no point giving up your meat and your car, recycling your rubbish and producing lots of children."

"the average American produces some 20 tonnes of carbon a year while some of those living in areas of the world with the fastest growing populations, such as Africa, produce a tiny fraction of that kind of carbon footprint."

i bet you were one of those people that when the WTC bldg fell on 9/11 stood standing there in shock thinking "how could this happen here? i live in america!". it is illogical foolishness to somehow think that you are going to survive some future apocalyptic type of struggle because you live in the U.S.. Do you really not see how naive and self aggrandizing that statement is?

Guess what, when war happens people die in all kinds of places. The general idea of "war" is not as specific as our ICBMs. microbes and viruses are even less pretty. Have you never heard any reports on the effects of biological warfare for example?

yeah, if we do nothing, nature will take care of it one way or another. it happens in every species. but we have the ability to do something about it if we care to. and there's nothing wrong with the idea of discussing some of the things we can change.

as much as you might want to be in denial about the global village we live in, unfortunately those "in the know" realize that everything on this planet is interdependent on one another. i'd rather not have humans go down by killing each other off OR falling victim to disease and will do all in my power to contribute to anything that will prevent that.

And as for viruses taking down the human population and Xando's Americentric view:

Will your health insurance cover treatment costs? What if the hospital you're brought to isn't in your preferred provider list, how will you pay? What if there IS no treatment except hope? What about all the people out there with NO insurnace at all? How would that impact America and our economy suddenly having thousands of unisured people using hposital resources? Should those that have insurance in a case like that be first to be treated while the uninsured are left to wait?

In the age of global travel, America is not safe from a killer virus. Ebola meets the flu anyone?