Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead
Well according to analyses of the human DNA genome they where able to determine that twice in our history the population suddenly went from a steady amount to a very small number perhaps as few as 10,000 so we have had natural events that reduced the population by a substantial margin before.
People dont really worry about such things though and even two worlds a pandemic that killed 1% of the world population and all the other conflicts did not make a dent in our population growth.Only nature herself can have a real effect sooner or later one of the super volcanoes around the globe will erupt and do the work of nature.I suppose a nuclear war could have a similar effect.Other forms of population control would just fail I think.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...etic-diversity |
I garee in that nature has no human sentimentality and will clear certain issues in its own unsentimental ways if these issues do not get solved by the species involved in it. And that will easily be solutions that said species may see as brutal, tragic, cataclysmic. As I tend to think: protection of the environment is protection of humans. Saving resources is saving mankind. Strict population control is human survival. We need to find a way to bring global population to much power levels and there establishing a dynamically fluctuating stability, preventing a slow growth of population, but also preventing over-aging. that necessarily will mean a limitation of individual rights of deciding on personal family planning. I see no way around that. But before that, there is the question of population reduction. And maybe we must leave that to nature indeed, for if we take care of that ourselves, we would necessarily become accomplices in the biggest massmurdering in known human history.
What an uninterested, unsentimental, imperfect world we live in.