In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
> In W Europe it wouldn't be that much of a problem to stop subsidising breeding by scrapping child allowances and as the population growth is already low this alone would probably stabilize the level, and a few fiscal incentives (why should those who choose not to have children subsidise the others?) would suffice to reduce births enough to provide the sort of gradual reduction that is required.
Most countries in Western Europe already have sufficiently low birthrates. It is only migration and increasing life expectancy that cause the still gradually rising populations. Many are en route to the gradual reduction that
is required.
As to your concept of "subsidising" breeding... You do understand that we need some people to have children? Having children is horrendously expensive, and largely leads to benefits for society at large rather than parents themselves. How the pitiful financial recompense we offer families can be described as "subsidy" I do not know... If, as you suggest, people who choose not to have children should pay less, I take it you would have no problem with those same people having no access to any services offered or products made by people younger than them - or at least if they do access the fruits of other people having children, then at that point they should pay a premium?
Yes, a somewhat preposterous argument, but only as preposterous as your simplistic overview of the situation. Population stabilisation and reduction is required, and some encouragement may be needed in some parts of the world to make it happen more quickly than the standard demographic transition model would cause it to happen anyway, but I've still not seen any sensible suggestions for how this can be achieved. Why not "logan's run" old people. If you are past working age, then why should you become an increasing burden on the working population through pension payments and health care. If you want to stabilise the population, then setting a maximum age to which life is allowed would the most effective method...
> I don't see why this is "impossible" - probably easier than any of the other "solutions" to climate change that are being suggested.
Timescale. You understand population pyramids and the impact of age structure on a society and economy? It means that it parts of the world - like India, south east Asia, most of Africa, which have a large bulge heading up the pyramid, it simply isn't possible to significantly reduce (or even stabilise in some cases) populations in timescales shorter than generations. And since most of the places where growing populations are still an issue tend to be pretty poor, and have extremely low per capita greenhouse gas emissions, it seems a bit of a diversionary tactic and abrogation of responsibility to try and use them to solve climate change, while dismissing the effect that our impact makes now, has made for the last century, and can make in the next decades if we choose to take calm, rational, and decisive action now. And that's the key. No panic, no ignorance, no procrastination.