From Daniel Cossins at New Scientist:
The ethics issue: Should we impose population controls?
Future generations risk inheriting an overcrowded, suffocating planet. Taking action may mean what was taboo is now common sense
Um, er, just a minute here. Who are the “we”? One sensse that the “we” are childless-by-choice types like most of Europe’s top leaders. So there must be a “they” somewhere out there. Who are the “they”? Africa?
Fears that we are too many are nothing new. As long ago as 1798, the English writer Thomas Malthus warned that a growing population would eat its way through the planet’s finite resources, condemning millions to die of starvation.
No seriously, obesity is a growing problem worldwide. Starvation is now common mainly in places plagued by toxic government.
As often happens in history, some groups choose low (or no) birthrates and others choose high ones. Over time, that changes the mix of humans.
The children of people who did have children must deal with the problems of their existence. Children who never existed do not. And people who choose not to have children have their nerve prophesying doom and threatening others with coercion.
Demographics is a game of last man standing, as Mark Steyn puts it, and someone will inherit the Earth. One rather hopes it’ll be the meek.
New Scientist offers to tell us more if we pay.
See also: Surprise, surprise, social psych tool for measuring racism doesn’t work