"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 07:35:04 +0000, Richard wrote:

The right thing is sustainable population. That doesn't mean enough
food
to feed the pestilence, it means a population that does not
adversely
affect the balance.

+1

The right thing to do is cull several billion, but that is deemed
extreme.

Only because no one wants to decide who would be culled or if you
just let people die, who should be allowed to have children.

Natural calamities will just have to do, or a new top level predator
might be cool.

Natures working on it. Won't be some thing with pointy teeth that
leaps out and eats you but something we can't see, like a bacteria or
virus (or group of).

The only way to control population growth (and a quite reliable one) is
to enable a population to have enough food to eat, shelter, education,
employment and health care to feel secure.

That isnt the way China and Japan did it.

And doesn't explain why the first world had one hell of a birth
rate after WW2 had ended and now none of the modern first
world is even self replacing now if you take out immigration.

Yes it does! War is not compatible with security.

That's nor the reason for the drop in the birth rate during the war. That
was due to so many being separated for their spouses during the war.

Or why that is true of most of the second world with the main
exception being some of the roman catholic countries and muslim
countries.


--

Roger Hayter