HomeAnswerNotificationsCustomize Feeds
Should the world's population be reduced to save the planet?
The question has become recurrent. So much so that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has affirmed that global warming can only be curbed by a massive reduction in the world's population.

absolute yes, its probably the only solution left other than colonizing space FAST

its not simply the dwindling resources and the fact that matter synthesis isn't really top-notch science yet or you could just have your star-trek gimmick re-arrange molecules from trash into that morning coffee

its base sustainability

a question i have asked in many places (to which no one so far has been able to give me an answer ... i heard someone claim to have calculated the possible number of "coinflips" (=timelines) since the big bang and i fear the erudite professor simply assumed that time has an absolute quantum level where it can no longer be divided, since otherwise after a few quanta, or actually after one there would be an infinite number of coinflips/timelines already as , mathematically speaking there's an infinite number of numbers between any two given numbers no matter which ones they are)

but that's a bit off-topic although it should set the mindset for my sustainability koan :

assuming there's a limited number of molecules -> atoms -> particles available here within the atmosphere of Terra (barring the occasional impact from micro-meteorites who might bring a few elementary elements into the eco-sphere on impact and dispersal)


how many humans does it take before the whole planet is one ball of homo sapiens and nothing else.

because, and i think that's irrefutable logic, long before that it would be cannibalism lol and way before that total chaos and ofcourse before the last piece of rock has its molecules altered at atomic / subatomic level to become carbonbased lifeforms, there would simply be nothing left to stand on.

ALthoug oxygen would probably run out before rocks to stand on. So if you look at it that way population CONTROL is nothing but inevitable in order to survive. 

No need for genocide, nature will fix itself anyway, you can not fight supply and demand and the inherent drive of all things in the universe to come to balance. 

Call it equilibrium, the exchange of energy to the middle point, or whatever mystical name you have for it. Its frankly pretty much how the whole thing works (gravity is but one of the phenomena of that as planets don't rotate, they "FALL" towards , i think the universe is portrayed in a wrong manner, it should be more vertical with everything constantly falling, not revolving, but thats hard to picture i guess.

And that's just core laws of the universe to which all humanism, good intentions and even the mighty paper law (probably even blockchain-tek) are subservient without much choice in the matter.

Other than that, the problem with food wouldnt be ability, it would be lack of fertile soil. Not just erosion but in places full of humans there simply is no fertile soil. A bit like zerg colonies ... another fact of life.

Ask some people from china who live in big cities on the delli (daily) what they think of it .. or India maybe ..

Its not about genocide, its about if you dont then you simply condemn future generations to misery , poverty and crime levels are directly related, hungry people don't adhere to eloquent reason very well either.

And ofcourse, the water scarcity (which is already showing) which might turn a gallon (liter?) of water more expensive than a human life

(o wait ... thats mostly already so heh)

it goes a bit deeper than "does global warming exist" as global is no longer something to prevent, but something to control the damage of, as is all the rest ... 1 kid per 2 people (not per couple) actually 1 KID per 2 PEOPLE for a decade or more might barely

barely fix some of it, after which theres more to spread over fewer people which means less crime since less poverty ... and maybe something closer to the sixties without the need for the nazis to rise again

(check out hungary btw where homelessness would be "unconstitutional" and the homeless would be put in labour camps ... is that not a sign of too many humans in one space ? )

or one could act like a UN dude in a suit and talk about "how it shouldnt be" ignoring human nature and the fact that very little has evolved in the past 100.000 years except for Turings machine to iThings

well then, its been a while since i saw musing but i REALLY didnt know what to post today, problem is here i always come out with popular opinion as i dont really do that political correct nazi or hippie crud

and i dont really like the attention (but i'll take the upvote if you have one lol .. i gotte eat too and i know

it's not about the money ....

(if you got six figures in your account)

[El Gato](https://steemit.com/re-introduction/@tyrnannoght/rudyardcatling-signature-post-20180912)

the sig is getting a bit old, tsk ...  if you dont believe me i can always links a few googles but im sure you can find those for yourself , i know i'm right

you know i'm right

stop breeding, save the planet :p

1 kid per 2 people, or none at all , for quite a while, maybe your grandkids will still be able to see an actual cow instead of protein cubes rationed by the men in black then

woaw ... there i went again

no i'm not saying one should shove the second kid back into the mother if its already there and im not saying people who rely on "kinder geld" as its called here should be deprived of it. If you think that please read again. 

But i am saying a strict one child policy (o dear now i done it ...) should be globally enforced (even more so can copyrism O M G, the new black !) and kinder geld should be abolished from ... from like tomorrow except for everyone who already gets it

fair ? what's that ? something from a movie , talking survival of the planet here

1 Comment


The answer is a resounding NO.

First off, it's not necessary, and secondly, what would could be done about it that isn't already being done, and wouldn't constitute genocide?


The growth rate of the world's population is already in decline and has been since the late 1960s when it peaked at an annual rate of 2.09%. It currently sits at 1.09%, and if nothing changes between now and 2050, it is expected to continue to decline to 0.56%. By 2100, the growth rate is projected to be at 0.09%.

Instead of the world population doubling as it has in 40-50 year spans from 1951 to present, it is only expected to reach 50% growth from now until beyond the year 2100.

This is not only due to the fact that the population is higher, thus requiring a higher population amount in order to double it. It is also because the fertility rate has been decreasing, too.


From 1955 to present, the total fertility rate among the world's women has decreased from 4.96 to 2.51. It is expected to drop even further to 2.24 by 2050. The total ertility rate measures the number of children born to a woman throughout her child bearing years.


Well, it depends on your definition. While these numbers are worldwide, population growths vary from country to country and region to region. There needs to be a certain amount of growth in order to stay ahead of the death rate, so that there is always a younger generation to replace the one that that is outgoing. In some countries, it is possible that growth rates will go negative. In some places it already has. In Japan, for instance, the current growth rate is at -0.23%, while actual population peaked at 128.567 million in 2009. The growth rate has been in decline since 1972 when it reached 1.46% after increasing for a time.


No doubt the alarm raised during the 1970s about too much growth has reverberated throughout the years and generations since. It seems like fewer people want children, and those that do want fewer of them. The legalization of abortion and the widespread use of contraceptives has all caused child birth rates to drop, but mainly in industrialized nations and that within predominantly urban areas, where the population densities are already high.

Economics has a lot to do with it, too. More women have been waiting longer to have children in order to form a more secure financial foundation, and in so doing, have caused the number of children they could have to drop simply because the biological window has narrowed.

Wars, famines, epidemics, etc., still play a part, too, in increasing death tolls over what they might naturally be otherwise.


Good question. The problem with any of this is, when people get together to determine how to control growth rates, more harm than good historically has come out of it. Massive genocides took place during the 20th century, not to mention world wars and other man made catastrophes. While not necessarily intentional population control, they stemmed from worldviews that ranged from weeding out undesirables so as to purify race, to wiping out opposition.

In reality, unless something changes, not much will need to be done to accommodate the larger populations still to come, but it will bring other issues with it. Governments generally rely on a healthy and vibrant tax base to provide programs, benefits and other services to its citizenry. As the growth rates fall, the number of younger people who will eventually be working decreases, at the same time that people are living longer, causing the median age of a population to increase. More people will be retiring with fewer workers to provide for their social security, investment funds, etc.

It seems in trying to take care of one perceived problem, we end up creating at least another in its place. In this case, doing nothing, letting things go as they are, might be the best thing for the consumption of resources and the potential of overcrowding, but it may just shift the burden of taxation and retirement back onto older generations. Whatever is done, let us hope it is not genocide. The world has enough blood on its hands as it is.

1 Comment

Yo!!! Thanos. Hold on!!! Before you snap your fingers. Just listen to me.

I don't know from where this idea originated but I swear this could be 5th or 6th that I have come across this question. And I think we had been phrasing it wrong. The question should be 'What can be done to save the planet?' 

The planet earth has limited resources and everyone knows. And I believe that the planet does have a mechanism called ecosystem succession. The habitat are constantly changing and It will continue to do so. One gets destroyed the other takes place. A lake turns into swamp land, the swamp/ marsh land turns into low vegetation grounds, That turns into jungle, the Jungle get destroyed by human and the human screws up and makes a Chernobyl out of it and the mother nature and animal kingdom takes it back over. 

Same goes for the Global warming, If the world gets submerged, the aquatic live will take over. Again the planet earth is safe. It is the human race that is screwed. Now, I may sound harsh but it is truth. It is not that people are worried about the planet earth, But we are actually afraid of our fate. Trust me even if a meteor comes crashing on earth, It will balance itself out in few centuries or so. It happened before, so no proof needed. But being the self aware being that we are, the fear of getting wiped out drives us towards the 'go green' or 'save tree' or 'save tiger' campaigns. Most of us never cared about the tree, tiger or the sea.

And it is good to save your own asses, but at what cost? You don't want to have limit on your own consumption but would kill the competition to have more for yourself. The only way to delay the inevitable is to play nice with mother nature and planet earth. Killing population would do no good, if the people who survived the suggested Idea but continued to be an ass towards the nature. 

Better solution would be develop some sense of responsibility, go plant a tree. Save a tree, Do something good for the environment, do something that would get you a thank you  from an environmentalist. Before picking up the gun and started eliminating population, Because then it would you, who has to do their share of work too.

I am @inuke, I guess what I am trying to say is that it would be shame if we die of an attack from killer tomatoes or a sharknado


I think it should and I agree with the United Nations Population Fund on the fact that we can only solve the problem of global warming by reducing our population. The problem is doing that, reducing the world population isn't something that you can just make happen with a flick of your fingers, you either have to increase the death rate, or reduce the birth rate.

Unless we want to introduce a law where no one is allowed to live beyond a certain age, and everyone who reaches that age is killed then the only way to make this population reduction possible is to reduce the birth rates. That's the only feasible solution I can see to this global problem because we can't be expected to increase the death rate.

The world should adopt something similar to China's two-child/one-child policy and it should be enforced globally. If two people are only allowed to produce two more people then it would go a long way in reducing the global birth rate. The less people that are born, the less people that are on the planet.

The world should aim for a situation where the death rate is higher than the birth rate so that the population can decrease. Once it decreases, in theory, there'll be less people to use fossil fuels and electricity and as such it'll reduce the overall amount of global warming in the world.

This will probably work, but it's probably not going to be implemented globally till humanity is at a crisis point in terms of overpopulation. Right now, the world can manage a couple more billion people without experiencing any real damage.

So to answer your question, yes the worlds population should be reduced, but not by increasing the death rate, but by finding a way to reduce the birth rate.

I hope this helps


Well, this reminds me of inferno by Dan Brown. A really scary revelation. This scientist wanted to reduce the human kind due to overpopulation by creation of a virus. But luckily in the end he failed.

I think out earth is still able to handle the number of people here. This debate of overpopulation has been there since the 1970s. Well, definitely the answer to saving the planet is the reduction of the population which I can see in many statistics is actually decreasing due to better education. Medicine is also improving. There has been about a 100 billion people who has ever lived on Earth. Only seven billion has survived.

I think technology will improve to be better and more and more new innovation can occur. Many countries around the world prefer to have fewer children. My parents used to have a football team of siblings. Now what I see is that, many are not even getting married. Those who got married only have one or two children on average. If this goes on, I can see the world population actually decreasing instead.


I don't think so. The problem with global warming is not the number of people living on it. It is the consumption era in which we are right now for which too many resources are being consumed to produce more and more. The UNFPA should take in consideration renewable resources, electric cars, smart cities and so on that don't harm the planet as much. This thing with us being too many is a theory that it's being propagated for years and it one that was for sure created by the elites for encouraging the depopulation of the planet. The ones that turned us into slaves again, actually modern slaves are the ones that consider us to be too many and come with such ideas. The logic behind this thing is that it is actually way more easy to control 1 billion people than 7. Thus they try to do everything to accomplish that. They try through vaccines, through chemicals in the food and in the air, to all sort of diseases and so on. I don't think the planet can't stand us. It's our way of life that it is ruining and this theory for depopulation is just a diabolic plan. That's how I see it. 


The simple and clear cut answer to this question is Yes.

It should be reduced.

I will explain my answer below.

- More houses

World population is increasing very fast, as the population is increasing, we need to built more houses for living, and we know that, most of the thing in the house is made of wood/trees. Plants are the natural source of oxygen and they also takes carbon die oxide, so more the population, we need more houses and that will leads us to less trees , less oxygen and more carbon die oxygen, and it is not good for our environmental at all.

- Traffic / transport pollution.

As the population is increasing, transport vehicle is also increasing, and the their smoke is a major cause of environmental pollution, it has proved many times. 

- Refrigerators and industrial smoke.

If you know about the Ozon layer, you must have known that, it is a layer between sun and our earth and protecting our earth from dangerous sun rays, but during the last few years, research has shown that, Ozon layer is getting weaker and weaker and that is why we start getting hot weather, it is also becoming the Global warming.

all these factors are controlled by decreases the rate of birth.

Hope the answer is clear.


Should the world's population be reduced to save the planet?

Good question, friend, but read carefully the following answers.

When people talk about overpopulation, you should ask, "Why? What's the problem with the number of people we have? "You will get some answers. Sometimes people say we can't feed everyone. That is not true. The maximum calorie output from agricultural production is now more than enough to feed everyone on our planet.

Maybe many people think that we have adequate water reserves. The water crisis is one of the biggest problems in various parts of the world. Fortunately, water can be recycled. You can desalinate water, you can collect water from the atmosphere, water does indeed come down from the sky.

However, you will encounter big problems when trying to desalinate water for everyone. The obstacle is energy. This is the fundaemental problem of the human population - not food, nor is the land of life increasingly narrow, the real problem is energy. Well, the question then is why don't we have enough energy reserves? The root problem is in fossil fuels and global warming. However, if it is kidnapped, so much energy can actually be obtained using simple technology, such as energy from wind, water and biomass, all of which can be renewed. Because after all the sun still continues to pump energy to Earth. Energy is the scene of the most recent progress and the potential for renewable energy is so abundant.

Referring to the facts above, why are many people so worried about seeing a human population that is considered excessive?

This is it. Take a look at calculus calculations about global warming. Here's the calculation: global warming is caused by how much carbon is needed to produce one dollar in economic output, multiply by the economic output dollar per person on Earth and multiply again with all the existing earthlings. The problem is that although there is a solution to this problem, the option makes something look normal even though it is actually unusual. And that is the population. The question then, if we can cut the population, will carbon emissions decrease?

The answer: not necessarily. There is a lot of research on this, about what happens if the human population can be reduced. The results indicate that emissions do not decrease in line with the decline in the human population. We are not quick to turn off the power plant just because the human population has dropped by five percent. Still, the streets must be illuminated. There are some fixed costs that we must bear

Furthermore, if we really count it - even if we assume that humans are ordinary instruments and the global economy will be affected by the decline in the population of humans - you will find that real population changes will not make significant changes. Decreasing fertility levels for example does not change the climate forecast so much. In essence, a decrease in fertility does not have much effect, especially in the timeframe we need to improve conditions. We need to change the pattern of carbon production in a century to avoid catastrophic climate change. The impact of the decline in land fertility is estimated to only be felt in 2075 and will not have a large impact until 2200 - this is considered very late. What we need to do now is to find ways to use as little carbon as possible. We must use alternative renewable energy sources. We must encourage the allocation of people in different living conditions.

Everyone who studies global warming is truly patient about this. Unfortunately, activists with a level of secondary education who are fond of dance believe that every family of four is the culprit of global warming. This is an idiot assumption. What triggers global warming is that our power plants still use coal instead of natural gas, or natural gas instead of hydropower, or still use hydropower instead of solar or wind power.

Did you find many cases of families with many children experiencing social insults?

Yes, here. Many people often call such families with the term "breeders" or "child factories." I know this when interviewing families with many children. If they are going to a mall or a movie theater, people often look sarcastically or insult them. I wonder why people feel they have the right to do something that is not appropriate.


Such an interesting question.

However, I am against your idea, because I believe it is inhuman to do such things. In my opinion, saving the planet is the mission of humanity, in which everyone must take part in this mission. It is not a one-day mission, but a ongoing, forever missions that every singe action may help.

Imagine yourself everyday try to reduce waste, educate others' mindset about saving the planet. Then, we might live in a planet with highly educated people, who aim to provide a sufficient living environment for everyone. Please note that there is sufficient resource on the Earth, it is just about us that use it wrongly.


I have an outright answer to that and it is NO!

The propaganda has always been that the planet is overwhelmed with population and that in no time, the earth's resources will no longer be able to sustain the human population. Even some scientists developed a theoretical concept of carrying capacity (K) to represent the maximum population the resources of the planet can sustain but I say all these are mere propaganda.

Why? If you look at the current distribution of wealth in the world, 90% of the world's wealth is been controlled by less than 10% of the world's population with one single individual holding a wealth that could sustain millions of population for a lifetime. In essence, I would say the problem with the world is not overpopulation but greed and skewed wealth distribution.

In actual fact, the planet has more resources that the current world population can exhaust if the wealth is allowed to flow from those hoarding it to those that have none. The capitalists ruined everything. Don't buy the propaganda! They want the proletariat to reduce their fecundity so as to sustain their own luxurious life.


Man @glendalbrethsen really knocked it out of the park.  Not much left to say but I would like to add that I was taught in an environmental science class that the best indicators of population growth in a society are women's rights, and women's education.  The more rights and education that women have in a society the lower the birthrate tends to be.  

This implies that in order to slow population growth in high growth areas, the best method would be to educate women and promote equality.  In India for instance, there is a huge propaganda campaign to this effect right now so this information is not new.  (propaganda doesn't necessarily imply a negative message, just a concerted effort to spread an idea)


I think it's a big NO. Apparently were not learn anything here. In fact we even just run away from the problem that has been standing in front of us for like the last 20 years. if you talk about we should reduce population in order to save this planet, then you were acting like a God. Last person who did that let's just saying Hitler, is not ending very well. And even if you were agree to to wipe out half of this planet *like what Thanos did, there's several issue you need to be clear off first like :

  1. What kind of person that can we "wipe" from this planet
  2. Who are you, so you can wipe out half of this planet
  3. Can you imagine yourself if you switch your place with the one who is about to be gone from this God's Green Earth

Surely we lost our mind if we chose such an option. We were not playing God here. Beside there's many ways to save this planet. Started from ourself, per person, and Individu. from basic thing's, until the very big one. Try to plant a tree whereever you are, try to use a renewable enegry instead of the old one, try to using recycle plastic instead of the conventional one. Try to educate our childern on how they should doing to this planet so it will be much better for them. 

i don't know why. But as a Human, one of our big bad behavior is we always looking for an instant way. In fact there's a lot better way to save this planet. But we couldn't see it. 


I think that this is a serious question. To be sincere,  population growth   that is not controlled has serious impact on environmental safety. With increased population, more demand for fossil fuel consumption is required to meet the increasing populationpopulationp demand.

I will therefore agree that serious law to control child birth should be put in place. 


Carbon footprint of a slaughter animals is way higher than that of humans.

I'm not saying we should all go vegan, but reducing the population of cows would work just as good as genocide. ;)


People are the most conflicting species on earth. While we are the planet's most noteworthy issue creators, we are likewise the issue solvers. 

In the event that we separate people and other living things on earth, we can see that we are truly a to an extraordinary degree interfering animal bundles that can encounter all completed and eat up colossal extents of customary assets. 

In doing everything considered, we make issues, from neediness and aching to natural contamination and absence of customary assets. 

We make cash related clashes, terribleness and disparity between get-togethers in our own species. 

We enslave our very own kind through money related means and make expansion with high use. 

We pass on so much garbage, making trademark contamination that outcomes in a general temperature alteration and natural change in the meantime. 

As a way to deal with right our abundances, we before long need to push toward accomplishing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations to keep up our planet. 

The unavoidable issue we ought to ask ourselves is: "Would we have the ability to settle it with a less troublesome arrangement, without relying on huge government structures? Is it honest to goodness that would anything say anything is nevertheless a phenomenal opportunity to add another objective to the SDGs, and that is Responsible Human Population through a one family two youngsters strategy?" 

Consider the advantages of this system for our sensible future. 

1. We would not have to continue building and purchasing titanic homes, which encounter an extraordinary proportion of land. 

2. We would not have to secure just to ensure our family isn't enthusiastic. 

3. Each relative would have greater imperativeness for mindfulness. 

4. Watchmen would have more noteworthy opportunity to revolve around the progress of their two kids in direction and to help them better. 

5. Everybody would shop less and diminish use, and this would assist us with ensuring a more vital proportion of our normal assets. 

6. Our flourishing would be better and we can live more merry lives as there would be less debate among relatives. Everybody can live in concordance and understanding. 

7. We would be able to guarantee better conventionality for the span of customary day by day presence and have more prominent opportunity to take an interest in framework work to help the underprivileged and care more for our condition. 

8. Our reality would wind up being all the more tranquil with less racket. 

9. Our general populace would not continue on through mental worry because of distress and powerlessness to persevere through the cost of the things we require. 

10. We would be able to diminish our carbon impression better and decrease condition pollution. 

11. We would have more oxygen to loosen up. 

12. We would be able to arrangement better for our retirement. 

13. It would be less troublesome for society to make benevolence and affectability. 

14. We would be able to spare our essential living space and normal life better. 

15. We would not be stuck in enormous flood hour gridlock deters to class and work. 

16. Remedial expenses would be more moderate for everybody. 

17. We could keep up a key separation from scenes of sicknesses basically more effortlessly. 

18. Human terrible practices, war and political debasement could be decreased essentially more enough. 

19. Countries would be more joined with more practically identical open gateways for everybody, and the hole among rich and poor would be more little. 

20. The soul of solidarity in our reality would be master quicker. 

21. Tactless conflict and unquenchability would be lessened and finally our reality would wind up being more practical.


Well we do a pretty good job of killing ourselves off as it is, Maybe concentrate on being cleaner as a whole before we go full solient green as a cure. 


Definitely NOT a good idea to begin with. We already knew a lot of solutions to alleviate global warming; using alternative natural energy. It's just that there is not enough effort for us to implement it. It could either be that there are no financial capacity to implement or it's just that the leaders don't care about the environment.