The problem is one of numbers, mainly all people and their impact on the environment. Simply stopping immigration, slowing down population growth, maintaining some and reducing consumption will not solve the problem.
The solution to overpopulation is simple, but unrealistic social and political. We must plan how to completely REDUCE the human population in some way before nature does it for us with an uncontrolled population collapse. In nature it is only a number of numbers and if the crash comes all people will suffer, and being white or rich will not help.
Carrying capacity dictates that the human population is reduced. I would rather people plan this reduction than wait for the ecological collapse leading to a population collapse suitable for a science / horror story. With so much growing in almost a few decades it should be clear that the social and environmental problems we face, from local to international, will get worse. In the competition for resources personal freedom will continue to be erased. Our economy is so dependent on imports and exploitation of immutable resources that some say it will not last longer, especially oil resources.
Once we recognize that people are the environmental problem there will be difficult decisions to be made about how to reduce our population. I also realize how difficult the decisions will be and I will try to explain my unrealistic plan.
The top 10 constituent population reduction plans are based on:
There must be widespread recognition that there are already too many people and something must be done to reduce our numbers to a degree that will eliminate the pressures (exploitation and pollution) that we put into nature;
The continued presence of so many billions of human beings further undermines nature, reduces the ability to carry on in the future, and reduces our choices to those who are even less attractive and more draconian;
There is no socially, politically or economically acceptable method of resolving overpopulation in a timely manner therefore economic and religious worldviews need to change their outlook on the short-term, pro-natural and anti-environmental;
It is better for a smaller human population to live indefinitely with some reasonable level of technology and civilization than to allow the superpower to destroy the environment and the ability to support a complex biodiversity by continuing to consumption and this population we are already in;
The plant and animal life of this planet are very important as parts of the biodiversity complex to be considered as exploitative resources to support the overpopulation;
Competition for resources (basic water, food, and oil) will increase significantly as the population grows as well as wars and economic collapse are unlikely;
Bioregional transport capacity needs to be a determinant of local population size and better strive for an optimum (lower) population that will allow nature a chance to recover from the devastation that has already occurred;
The value of an individual human life is negligible, or even an environmental responsibility, if we already have billions;
The sooner we aggressively reduce our population the less total human suffering;
TIME is the critical factor because if we do not plan to plan and act to solve the overpopulation then we will take nature upon us in our downfall.
If and when the above requirements come then really difficult decisions about how much reduction will be needed (maybe 85%), how such a reduction will take place, and in what period it can be achieved (?? ). Remember that the problem is more than the environment and is caused by too much humanity.
Once it is recognized that a reduction must take place, it is easy to plan who will be removed first - those who are the most burdensome in society: criminals, the long-term sick, the sick, the neglected, etc. From there you will go to about an economic burden, those in areas that have been damaged by the environment, and many that will not be needed in a future “sustainable” society.
When the goal may be an 85% population reduction then be tough to identify who can be saved - what skills, language, cultural characteristics, etc. It also decides how to best preserve, benefit from, and survive in the technology and products of our consumptive economy. It becomes a re-creation of human civilization and perhaps an opportunity to prevent or eliminate the many mistakes that have developed in our cultures.
Who decides is not as close to importance as taking action. The actions taken are numerous and varied but all lead to a rapid decline in our population. Ethics and morality need to value the environment over human short-term interests to ensure a future that allows for the long-term survival of the people.
It is likely that a general acceptance of the above-mentioned areas will occur only in the collapse of civilization after the collapse begins.
Planning should also include how to maintain a desired level of technology and how the new civilization will work in a bioregional, self-supporting dimension. Kirkpatrick Sale’s book provides some guidelines on how a smaller and scattered society can function. Unfortunately, few people seem willing to discuss solving the problem of overpopulation by increasing the death rate. A planned increase in mortality seems to be a taboo that even Garrett Hardin was reluctant to deal with. But a reduction in current population levels seems to be the obvious solution when considering expected population growth trends, optimal transport capacity, resource depletion, and the rate of environmental degradation.
"If they do not understand the severity of the problem, they will not understand the severity of the solution. The overpopulation will have to deal with it."
