WHO SAYS HIGH POPULATION IS NOT A DRAWBACK OF SUSTAINABILITY?

     If the current world population was at about 900 million or less, we would still have developed , we might (a strong "might") still have caused climate change. But then it would not be at this rate. And that might still make us still a little complacent, but it would be under control. Plus it won't be at this time, the effect of which would be more time to develop sustainable energy sources.

     Now population did not get the world this far in its growth and development. Surely everything is related to everything, so one way or the other it had its effect. One is that it intensified competition. I mean, a company's product being popular in a highly populated region is great gain to the organization. But the world's present level of growth and development, are results of drive and competition not population.

     Population has always been means to an end not the end in itself- except in dumb regions that pursue the "glory" of attaining megacity status. Shit!

     But lands are not used to their fullest to cater for growing populations, and populations are also not decreasing.

     It used to be believed that higher population brings about more progress and more wealth. But please... more population drives more consumption. It's like a natural equation-balancing phenomenon; cause and effect kind of stuff.

     It should be natural that with more population comes more production i.e, more labourers, more professionals, more military power etc. But it's of little consequence as there is more work to do; more citizens to cater for, more and easier victims of wars and diseases, more stress on natural resources as well as environmental damage, more criminal activities and so on.

     Population can be a liability as it can mean more casualties of a negative occurrence and does not necessarily mean more intelligence or manpower; moreso in the twenty-first century, where some kind tech can almost feel like sorcery.

     So what the fuck is its use? Why is it so hard for China and India to enact strict population policies? Their CO2 emissions are bad enough, they alone still have to consume what about three or more countries in every continent can consume.

     Finding alternative energy sources  of energy is a good way of controlling climate change and mitigating its effects. Carbon taxing and the UN's education of staff and other stuff are all good.

     But all these would just be of little effect if population keeps rising. Forget that the cost of greenhouse gas emissions is supposed to increase after a few years. Everybody (or nation) falters in payment for one reason or the other; except if the price of emission is too cheap and therefore of no consequence.

     But with population reduction which would definitely result in consequent reduction of energy consumption, all these other solutions would be complemented and the results would not only be environmentally positive, but with more resources to go around and more job opportunities, standards of living can only but get better especially for presently poorer countries.

      Almost 8 billion people this year (2020), I was shocked! When was the world population at 3 billion? Which people are those "shitting" children anyhow? In this world where natural resources are depleting like running water, the world's natural resource systems are being polluted while being unpredictable as a result of climate change and the foundation of our physical existence (i.e, the earth itself) is adapting to change a bit faster than we can observe (thank God for remote sensing and other technologies); the effects of which seem to be much worse in poorly researched and under-understood regions. Hmph! It's only a matter of time before the worst hits us.

     (The Armageddon war is probably not good versus evil, but the result of the negligence of man that would be savage, animalistic fights for the few remaining resources for survival; the last stage of adaptation...by the way)

     Population used to have its  use in times of slavery where more slaves meant more production and probably respect, and the more people, traditional leaders of Africa could sell into slavery, the longer they stayed useful and alive and well. But who gives fuck about this sort of things now? Except you are talking about the mental backward thinking type.

     Another area where population was of use in the past was during wars. Who would still agree that population makes all the difference in today's wars- Nobody who is thinking normally. Even then, Hitler's loss is testimony against the military power of population.

     But with the advancements of computer technology, the only advantage to population is just business opportunity which can elude the opportunists if they are dumb- the giants of Africa for example.

     Population reduction will result in a less ethnic-biased world especially in Europe; such that if population was greatly depleted there, they would need people (from all over the world) with skill to fill positions. And these people, because population would be on high demand, would be paid well and catered for.

Plus we would also be getting prepared for a more tech-pronounced (IMO, robotisized) world. It won't be nice at all for robots to come and meet this sort of high population; with many unemployed and under-employed people and one that is still increasing. People will fucking suffer.

     Population today is much more harmful than helpful to us and the earth. It has long been high time national and world leaders looked into it.