Begs the question why folks want to populate a place that has chronically small amounts of fresh water. It's their choice, just like breeding.
It's not like the majority of impoverished Saudi citizens have a lot of choice in the matter of where they live. Same goes for China, where they tried out the population control thing, with fairly disastrous societal and demographic consequences.
Deforestation, over-fishing, pollution, poor use of water resources and destruction of habitats is very much driven by an excess of humanity with an ever increasing urge to consume excessively.
No. It's driven by the greed and ineptitude of the people who have impoverished those countries where these problems are acute. People in developed countries are choosing (important word that) to have smaller families. This is a luxury made possible by our high standard of living and high state of technological development. We no longer need the extra muscle power to keep ourselves fed. Who are we to tell the Indians, Chinese, Congalese and Brazilians they should continue to lead nasty short brutish lives cooking over charcoal fires, and forcing their young into the fields to work at the age of five, instead of enjoying the fruits of their own development just as we have? If you want to see what China really thinks of the green moral manacles the west is trying to hoodwink the developing world into wearing, read this intro to a state sanctioned book on the subject:
If we of the developed nations have been able to invent cleaner forms of power generation for cooking etc we should be happy to pass those benefits of those inventions on to our brothers and sisters in the developing countries. More than 3/4 of the worlds energy usage is generated from fossil fuels. That isn't going to change overnight no matter what laws are passed. The emissions from that power generation are not the acute issue. The acute issues are perfectly soluble problems around energy equity, housing, water, food and rubbish disposal.
The per capita use of energy in Europe is around half that of the U.S. Europeans are also choosing to have smaller families. Europeans have also successfully reforested their own continent following the end of the steam and wooden ship age. This is called progress. America is doing the same with better environmental protection for wild habitats.
I largely agree with you that we could lead less excessive lives inthe west. That is the code I myself follow. I'm heating my home with naturally fallen timber. I grow some of my food. I have a solar hot water system. I use an electric bicycle which I recharge with a solar panel as much as possible for errands, and a 50 year old single cyclinder motorcycle which does 85mpg for commuting to work.
one vote for Lynn to be the new UN environmental Tsar.
I choose to do these things. I don't try to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't choose to do. Nor will I vote dictatorial government into power. Certainly not a Tzarist government. Not even if it's headed by a lovely caring person like Lynn.
It is probably an insoluble problem, but to say we should just sit back and let nature take it's course is silly IMHO
I advocate letting nature take its course precisely because it's not a problem, and even if it were, it's insoluble anyway. IMHO choosing not to get worried about insoluble non-problems is a lot less silly than trying to use sky-is-falling scare stories to frighten people into demanding an end to human progress and development.
Paul Ehrlich is wrong, was proven to be wrong and has a lot to answer for.
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions."
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb
Tell you what Paul, lead by example; you go first.