I've now seen that our nation strongly believes that starting a family is the main key to happiness. However, I believe that there are too many of us that want this wish. There are now over 7 billion people on this Earth & growing as we speak. As a nation, we need to take a good look at our surroundings. We notice that there are many endangered species that are near extinction are struggling to grow their population because our kind's selfish acts, which consist of killing, torturing & abusing them. The rate of these acts have grown alarmingly high & yet hardly anyone is doing anything about it. Because of this, I believe that we should stop our population from over-expanding before it's too late.

Ok, I understand that we may kill some animals for food purposes (e.g. chickens, pigs or fish), but we should notice that the majority of animals are not food & should not be harmed. However, there are other arguments that say that if you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. As it is seen on a number of occasions, these kinds of animals are killed in the most ridiculous ways possible. We should stop using these tactics & think of less painful ways to make our kind more peaceful. For example, there may be animals that are old that may have just passed away. As they are already dead, we can use them for our daily needs (mostly food). As for myself, I do not raise & kill animals for food, but I eat meat & fish because it is 1 of the 5 food groups I need for my everyday diet. However, I believe there are people who choose to overdose on 1 particular food group (particularly meat) need to stop overeating & become more balanced within their diet.

Judging from what I have said, I also believe that there could be an alternative way we can reduce our population. One way we can achieve this is the one-child policy, which was introduced in China in 1979. Other countries can adapt to this policy & the world population would easily reduce.

There are few ways to reduce overpopulation.
First and easiest is Global War.
Its painful duty of humankind to fall on it -
or everything became worse year after year.
Second is force space science .
Force humans to space colonization.
third is reduce consumation,
but nobody will like to do so.

What else ???

It has always been interesting to me that no government or NGO, including Friends of the Earth, is willing to take the bull by the horns and deal with the global threat of overpopulation. It seems to be a taboo subject. 27 years ago, I was so horrified when the Earth's population hit five billion that I started writing a book as a vehicle for presenting my own ideas on population control. By the time I had finished writing the book and published it last month, the population was SEVEN BILLION.

There seem to be far too few voices willing to confront the issue of too many people in the world. There's a lot of noise about feeding all the billions to come, but not in reducing birth rates. That in my mind is insane.

If you're interested in the book, it's 'The O.D. by Chris James'.

Are we the only three people in this forum?

Yes, we must have birth restrictions. However, to get there we must fix our collective understanding of human population. Our scientists and the general public are confused.

Malthus, and scientists ever since, recognized that populations attempt to grow to infinity at an exponential rate and that attempt is either stopped by limiting the number of babies we create, or by premature death. Malthus and population scientists have made the horrid assumption that because we can individually control how many babies we make, that therefore collectively we've limited how many babies we create and have not driven our numbers into the limit. We see a rising population and make the erroneous conclusion that our numbers are not at the limit. We have no understanding of what must happen at the limit, and therefore have no understanding of what the symptoms will be and whether we are experiencing those symptoms.

The limit is the situation where births arrive faster than the environment can accommodate them, and children are killed as a consequence. The limit can be changing while we are at the limit. This is similar to a car being driven into the back of a moving truck. The truck is the limit, and the fact that it is moving is irrelevant. The car is still smashed into the back of it attempting to go faster.

It is easy to see who must die if we hold the limit steady. In that situation, if adults average x babies, then (x-2)/x children must die. To save specific children, older adults are sacrificed either intentionally or unintentionally. Unfortunately only a falling adult life expectancy can prevent (x-2)/x children from dying, and adult life expectancy cannot fall forever. Once it gets to a horribly low level, child mortality resumes at the rate of (x-2)/x, but now there are more absolute numbers of children. If we are at the limit, we would expect to see low adult life expectancy and high child mortality, but there's more to understand.

We humans group ourselves and care for others in the group. There are groups from the family level up to whole countries. The average number of babies adults create in the environment determines the child mortality rate and the child mortality can fall disproportionally on some groups. This means we would expect weaker groups to bear the brunt of the suffering while stronger groups have nearly no child mortality and enjoy high adult life expectancy.

Clearly this is exactly what we see in the world today. The whole Earth is one environment today because of cheap transportation. The death budget, the number of children that must die as a consequence of our excessive world wide average number of babies, is effectively exported to the third world countries. They bear the brunt of the child mortality horror, and as a consequence of our ignorance, they suffer low adult life expectancy.

The fact that we have managed to increase the sustenance production dramatically in the past many decades and therefore allow our population to grow allows more children to live to be adults, but this growth does not mean we have managed to increase the production as fast as our births have attempted to grow our numbers.

Our scientists need to know this. They need to stop assuming that somehow magically our individual control of our fertility results in some overall control that ensures we are not killing children as a consequence of over breeding.