The unholy combination of religious zealotry and political corruption and inertia will see to it that starvation will solve the problem. It's disgusting but that's the way things are in this world....a few random ideas:
We harness nuclear fusion, develop mechanized agriculture basic on electric vehicles, educate the poor, stop child benefit, by law the right to have a family should be based on means, food aid should only be provided to poor people along with condoms and mandatory education, interstellar exploration happens in order to make use of raw materials from other planets and asteroids, anyone who has more than 3 children should be fined and sterilized, economies should be directed towards new technologies rather than providing for the materialistic whims of the shallow majority, every state and law system is completely secular and adopt a one party system where every department is voted in and out depending on strict performance criteria, make sure every murderer is executed and every rapist and pedophile is sterilised, ban religion, give more scholarships for higher education,...oh I think you get the idea.
Sounds brutal and ruthless? Maybe, but the alternative is far worse. Most of us are useless when it comes to actually making/doing something that could enable survival apart from just passing on our genes and there will be one or more main events that cause the majority of the population to disappear in the future.
Totalitarian mass sterilization is surely better than millions of dead in a plague scenario and the problems of dealing with the dead bodies etc, but the ideal solution is to change our attitude towards mother earth and not just to educate more people, but increase their desire to be educated, but this is a mammoth task.
If 'god' has allowed this pending population crisis and suffering to happen then he/she/it is a fascist! Religion is out of date and is turning a huge number of people into brain washed drones. We talk about morals, but at which level are they most justified, for the good of the individual or for the good of mankind as a whole?
Bottom line: The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world. A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days. To those people who think having lots of children is their god given right, its not rocket science just do the math!
Do any of those self absorbed individuals who think it is their right to have children understand the heart of the problem? In raw nature it is an animal urge to have as many offspring as possible so at least two of them survive due to the cut throat environment mother nature throws at them. We now live in a civilised society where most children survive to adulthood and due to consumerism we have a high standard of living until a ripe old age. Do the sums, it is a simple trade off. We are genetically programmed to have a desire to reproduce like any animal does, but we also have something very large called a neocortex which allows us rational thought. Try using it. The planet's resources are finte, as are the resources of our own country, which means population growth has to be finite as well in order to maintain a status quo in living standard. We have three options 1) forced population control by the state 2) mother nature ruthlessly controls the population through famine and disease 3) we control ourselves by expanding our minds and looking out for the species as a whole, which is the best option? Have loads of children if you wish but you will only be condemning either them or their offspring to a far lower standard of living. Disagree with me as you wish but if you want a certain way of life you have to accept certain boundaries. It is about earning your rights with responsibility and they should both go hand in hand. There are 7 billion people in the world now and 9 billion predicted by 2050, and something has to give. We are sitting on a time bomb here and I beg you to think with logic over desire, because isn't that what makes human beings stand out? Try looking beyond your own little lives and think of humanity as a whole and you will see my point, because in the end it WILL affect in your own little lives in the long run. It is not an attack on any individual, but I wish everyone in the world would realise it. Things are changing in this millennium and we have got to a set of crossroads. This goes to people trying IVF off the state and people who have large families and claim child benefit just because they can. There is no such thing as a free lunch. I would love for the world to become educated enough to see that personal population control is the way to go, but there are enough stupid people out there for me to know that’s not likely to ever happen.
It may sound cruel, but I don’t see the benefit in all these humanitarian missions like Darfur. The genocide there is a result of competition for resources (because of overpop). It’s a human tragedy, no doubt, but if you save these people, they’re just going to create a strain on resources somewhere else, and once that strain becomes too great, or one group becomes too jealous, genocide will result again. Bill Gates may provide mosquito netting to prevent malaria in Africa. If you prevent malaria, how many rain forests will these people cut down to feed themselves? How much food will we need to send to place like Kenya (the Maersk Alabama was bringing food to Kenya, right next door to Sudan. When the Earth wants to have fewer people on it, it finds a way to get rid of them. Plagues like the Black Death or the Spanish Flu during the 1920s eliminated millions of lives in heavily populated areas. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. cut down populations. The original point doesn’t sound so cruel after all. I honestly think we’re due for another pandemic of a sort. Just seems like developed countries have been living too clean lately. People have forgotten the past and are oblivious to the future.
It is not sustainable and what good is being politically correct and ensuring ALL freedoms if it will lead to the downfall of humanity? Curbing population growth through family planning must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. Governments must reduce population growth by funding better family planning - even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion, and reduce child benefit to just one child. Don’t get me wrong children are lovely and can enrich the lives of parents, but what is wrong with having a maximum of two children who will each receive a great portion of family resources not to mention that the planet has a biological load limit and I’m sure we have surpassed it already.? Voluntary human extinction movement take it a little far, but the ideal has it’s basis in everything that was discussed here.
Which leads to my next point…
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
Democracy just plain doesn't work. And it will inevitably lead to tyranny. By employing democracy, it says that everybody has a say in who should lead the country. The problem is that this implies that everybody does know what’s best for the country and understands politics. My suggestion (as it would be apt to provide a solution albeit a rather simplistic one) is that qualified voting MUST be implemented whereby a person must qualify as intellectually apt in order to cast a vote. This, I know, is drastic but in order to combat this "apathy" as such, maybe such drastic measures are necessary. To end - I have to say that I believe in dictatorships as such where a bunch of qualified intellectuals run a country! But, in the real-world, I know this is impossible because of corruption and stuff but one can dream... The person that can't find "Russia (biggest country in the world)" but needs to find a way to find food and or money to feed his/her family should be able to vote because s/he knows his/her world and how government affects his/her wallet.
Democracy Is Fake When the Populace Consists of Ignorant Sheep Who Can Easily Be Manipulated By the Powers That Be. I like the idea of 'majority rules', except when the majority consists of un/misinformed pawns who have no touch with reality and are easily manipulated into believing virtually anything that could appear to further their personal interests. The majority should be considered, and forgive me for the term, 'retarded'. The powers that be are working only in their own interests to gain money, influence, and power over everything. They are not working for the majority, but pretend that they are, to the detriment of society. The world needs to be ruled by reason, and if people are too thick to understand reason, they can adhere to the concept under a similar whip under which they are currently facing. Eventually as their lives became better, I'd hope that they'd understand why it must be. I've had it with the bullshit. It's enough. I want reason to rule, at any cost. Bring on the philosopher. We need a dictator that has absolute power, yet cannot be corrupted.. maybe we need alien overlords or something. Some may say god will determine the outcome, but if that was the case we would go the same way as the Neanderthals. People are too ignorant, scared, and self-interested to be trusted with the vote, and the candidates are too ignorant, scared and self interested to be trusted to keep to their unrealistic promises, and once they get a taste of power it simply gets reinforced.
Both of these points are examples of short term whims which will inevitably lead to the downfall of humanity as we know it.
‘facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence’
john Adams 2nd US president. Argument in Defence of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, but a quote that can be applied to many things.