Traffic jams, pollution, loads of wastes, material consumption, needs to administrate all that, size of the cities, ability for justice to be served, hospital facilities, availability of pre-schools, number of children in class rooms...
People think overpopulation is a problem when you reach a certain cap, but I don't think there is a cap. I think it's progressive.
Plus with our current population size, we are bound to certain kind of systems and can't try alternatives. We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
This is great to produce and consume a great quantity of goods, but not so much for education, progress as a society, as a specie and even for something simpler such as producing goods of great quality.
But even if you disagree with any of that, and my whole population size theory, great birth control would solve one current major problem: unwanted pregnancy by men.
I'd say about half of my male friends became parents unwillingly for a lot of different reasons and scenarios. It does not make them great fathers because they didn't want to be one at this time of their life in the first place.
I think a global solution for a safe, non invasive and permanent procedure to keep one sterile at will would improve immensely the quality of life, eduction, and growth of children. Because the ones being here would be the ones wanted.
People (in our hypothesised Western industrialised nations) WANT density of population. People can already freely move to less densely populated areas, where they avoid traffic jams, pollution, etc etc etc. They choose not to. Density of population creates opportunities that people decide are worth the extra problems to be part of.
Halving the population wouldn't stop this happening. There would be a rush to the cities, a rush to create density of population and all the opportunity people want from it. What you're complaining about would happen again; particularly since people know what's possible with density of population, and they choose it over the alternative.
I suppose you might be able to get the effect you want if you really, REALLY reduced the population. By an order of magnitude or more.
We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
Which allows us to have a society in which people are hundreds and hundreds of times richer than they were even a couple of centuries ago. The wealth of humanity under this is astonishing. We are all so much better off. And again, to reach the point where this efficiency became uneconomic and your alternative options would become optimal would require a population drop of far more than half.
- I believe lowering the population density will not annihilate those benefits. Paris was still Paris with the half of its population, but you could find a pre-school much more easily 50 years ago.
- the benefits of the current density can be achieved with a lower one given our current knowledge and technology
- accumulating wealth is probably not as much as linked to population density (in our modern countries) as that we have added science (machines and software) to our optimized slavery and theft.
- With a smaller population, we may be able on concentrate on quality of life. And education, which could lead to limit our current huge amount of wastes and appetite for superficial things. This could balance what we loose for a higher density population.
People think overpopulation is a problem when you reach a certain cap, but I don't think there is a cap. I think it's progressive.
Plus with our current population size, we are bound to certain kind of systems and can't try alternatives. We have to normalize, we have to batch, we have to have pyramids, a chain of command to manage things.
This is great to produce and consume a great quantity of goods, but not so much for education, progress as a society, as a specie and even for something simpler such as producing goods of great quality.
But even if you disagree with any of that, and my whole population size theory, great birth control would solve one current major problem: unwanted pregnancy by men.
I'd say about half of my male friends became parents unwillingly for a lot of different reasons and scenarios. It does not make them great fathers because they didn't want to be one at this time of their life in the first place.
I think a global solution for a safe, non invasive and permanent procedure to keep one sterile at will would improve immensely the quality of life, eduction, and growth of children. Because the ones being here would be the ones wanted.
Which means basically shaping a better future.