Those things are already happening due to overpopulation?
I don't know if you meant to state this as a question, or if the question mark was a mistake. Anyway, last I checked, the world's population is still increasing, and is expected to increase for about another 2 billion people, if current trends hold, before leveling off. If you agree that the world's population is already too high, then obviously it'll be too high by 2 billion more people. So, whether it's a question or not the answer is: No, it's not.
Ever heard of the ZPG concept? about 20 years ago there was a movement for this. You would see ZPG bumber stickers at the same rate we see Starbucks coffee shops today...everywhere. Zero Population Growth. So many kids already out there put up for adoption that need homes. Poverty is cureable if people would stop breeding like rabbits.
No argument here. That doesn't answer the question of how you'd go about forcing people to have fewer kids. (Obviously, they're continuing to have too many.)
To answer your question. You balance population growth with what the resources can sustain. For example; Indias resources cannot sustain it's population and the side effect is extreme poverty and disease. Reversal, stop reproducing.
No argument here. See above comment though.
If people cannot think ahead and limit themselves they deserve the suffering that comes with it.
That seems to be the current approach, and it's not keeping them from continuing to have too many kids. So obviously, this isn't an approach that works.
Pretty clear and somewhat humane decision not to reproduce when you already have 7 and they live in squalor and disease.
No argument here. And yet, they do.
Secondly... Although controversial, base population growth off of nature or emmulate nature.
Which portion of nature would this be? Many studies have shown that Nature doesn't really have an approach for this that works without a predator/prey relationship. e.g. Rabbits breed like... rabbits. And without a predator keep doing so until they exhaust resources (suffer from the rabbit equivalent of extreme poverty and environmental degradation). Fortunately, foxes eat rabbits. Their population grows until the rabbit population drops, then foxes die off, then the rabbit population booms again, followed by the foxes, etc. It's a continuous cycle (shown several times, also with wolves/moose, and other predator/prey combinations). In the absence of a predator (Deer in most of the eastern US, for example) nature over-populates until resources are exhausted.
I suppose that what you're suggesting here is that we either over-populate until resources are exhausted (e.g. what we're doing now) or create a predator that will be able to effectively prey on us. The latter doesn't seem very likely.
Much more to this theory but nature is in harmony and in balance and is not over populated.
See above. Not true.
If someones quality of life is so bad due to cancer or another terminally ill disease and wants to die let em.
Sure. That happens after they've bred though, and doesn't solve anything.
Personally I agree with Chinas one child policy.
Which was enforced using a variety of techniques including (non-harmful) patriotism, as well as involuntary sterilization (often done to women who were in the hospital for other treatments). Do you also support that approach?
I'd also like to point out that it didn't actually work. China's rate of population increase declined, but the population continue to increase.
When I lived in Japan, the govt actually paid you when your wife had a kid. They still do.
See the previous poster's comments about education. I'd add that, in particular, it's education of women that's important. (Most Western well-educated, well-off countries have declining populations. The US is an exception here.)
How much of your pay are you willing to give up in order to educate the world's billions of uneducated people to the point that they too can become educated and well-off and stop breeding like rabbits? (I'd give some portion of mine, but it'd not be enough. Also, if you follow the news, it should be obvious that there are lots of people in the US that don't support educating our own poor, let alone those of other countries.)
All too often the truth is what we dont want to hear because its not "the nice thing to say" or not what's politically correct. I dont worry about such things anymore. People say Chinas policy is harsh, what do you think? What would China be like without it?
More populous than now. What price are you willing to pay? What price are you willing for your son or daughter to pay?
More to the point: How likely, in a democracy, do you think it is that the people in office would remain there for long if they implemented this approach? (My Answer: One election cycle, at most. Not necessarily because of me - just being pragmatic.) How well has it worked in China? (My Answer: China's population is still growing - something that obviously isn't possible if every woman has just one child. Therefore, it's not.)
Every nation that has extreme poverty and disease has one factor in common...
Overpopulation.
This is tautological. People don't think of a country as "over-populated" unless it is unable to properly food, clothe, and provide jobs for it's population - which means that, by definition, a country is "over-populated" if it has extreme poverty.
One could argue that there are countries that do not have extreme poverty and disease that could also be considered over-populated: some countries in Europe for instance. These don't come to mind because these countries are wealthy enough to handle it (i.e. import resources, such as food, needed to sustain their populations). It doesn't mean there aren't too many people in those countries too.
