Reproduction is something that will even out. Overpopulation will stop being an issue in the 21st century.
From personal experience this is strongly based on where you live. If you're out in the countryside without many resources, then getting enough protein on a plant-based diet is seriously tough and a lot more expensive.
Where the heck are you getting this 1 billion number from
It is generally the poorest in the poorest countries that keep having too many children than they can afford , they put a burden on their already poor countries and contribute to this vicious cycle of poverty . People shouldn't be allowed to have more than 3 children, we have too many people , a majority of them useless.
Nah let's just kill 11 billions, sounds easier AND I get to keep eat meat. Yum yum.
Again, please watch this video.
They are though since they are growing in numbers unlike the rich countries and on top of that keep migrating to these rich countries were they enjoy higher standards of living which means they start consuming way more ressources.
I am mainly talking about the food resources, rich consume more in other materials because they can afford it . Also poor countries will stay poor if they can't control their population, they will never have the same living standards of developed with how overpopulated they are.
But if these poor people moved here then they wouldn't be classed as poor anymore, so would that solve the problem? No, because our standards are unsustainable in the long run. When a tenth of the world consumes OVER HALF of all resources I'm not going to blame the 2 billion that live on 3% of the pie to do better.
No it doesn´t. Population would already be down massively in western Europe if it wasn´t for immigration. Almost 20% of the population in Germany has at least one immigrant parent. And this number is only going to go up from here on out.
Singapore and Hong Kong are the most densely populated region of the world, yet its not poor. Population density and poverty are not related. The problem is capitalism. That is what keeps countries poor, as they cannot compete against the richer countries, but get completely bought out by them and their industry kicked into the dust. The only countries who manage to escape poverty are the countries who do precisely NOT what institutions like the WTO, IMF or the World Bank tell them to do, but implement strict government control of the economy.
In Fig. 4 we illustrate a potential framework implied by our findings, prior research, and emerging policy (9). First, producers would monitor their impacts using digital tools (36). Data would be validated against known ranges for each value (e.g., maximum yields given inputs) and validated or certified independently. In the United States these tools have already been integrated with existing farm software (31); in Africa and South Asia they are in trials with 2G mobile phones (37); and in China they have been operated by extension services with extremely successful results (24).
Fig. 4 Graphical representation of the mitigation framework.
Second, policy-makers would set targets on environmental indicators and incentivize them by providing producers with credit or tax breaks or by reallocating agricultural subsidies that now exceed half a trillion dollars a year worldwide (38). Third, the assessment tools would provide multiple mitigation and productivity enhancement options to producers. Ideally these tools would become platforms that consolidate the vast amounts of research conducted by scientists around the world, while also sharing producer best practices. In particular, practice sharing offers a very effective way to engage producers (24). Maximum flexibility also ensures least-cost mitigation (39) and supports producer-led innovation (24).
Finally, impacts would be communicated up the supply chain and through to consumers. For commodity crops that are hard to trace (31), this may not be feasible and mitigation efforts may have to focus on producers. For animal products, stringent traceability is already required in many countries (40), suggesting that communicating impacts is most feasible where it matters the most. Communication could occur through a combination of environmental labels, taxes or subsidies designed to reflect environmental costs in product prices (35), and broader education on the true cost of food.
We have consolidated information on the practices and impacts of a wide range of producers. From this research, we have provided a unified exposition of the environmental science for making major changes to the food system. We hope this stimulates progress in this crucially important area.
