Since 2011, I got smarter, so I could correct and rewrite my article which was there on theenvironmentsite.org...
And now, October 18, I edited my post here (it seems it is hard to write perfectly for me, but it gets more perfect in time):
On the ideal way to limit overpopulation
There can be people who say that there is no overpopulation, and there can be people who say that there is overpopulation but we shouldn´t do anything against it. This essay builds on the faith that there is overpopulation and we should do something against it, but this essay is not about proving this faith. Instead, it searches for the answer to the following question: how to limit population size in the ideal way if we want to? Here are some thoughts about it, most of which are from Árpád Fekete, but there were some other people whose thoughts helped to correct his errors. You can also join to try to make it more perfect. Note that the ideal way is not only for the short-term future, but for the long-term too.
In Nature, animal population is limited by death. In case of humans, this would mean, for example, war, duel, famine or disease. As we don´t want this in the long term, we can choose to limit the number of births. If God exists, God may do this job, for example, by decreasing human fertility. However, it is possible that God or Nature will choose another way, to cause more suffering, so it is probable that we had better take care of limiting birth rates in our own community, in case the population size would be increasing without taking care.
The question is how could we limit the number of births in a sustainable, liberal and ethical manner. If some people voluntarily chose not to have children, or to have less children, because of environmental thinking, then it is probable that in evolutionary time those would proliferate who don´t care for the environment as much and cannot control their instincts. Thus this solution wouldn´t be sustainable in evolutionary time, and it wouldn´t be just either. We have to compete for the rights of reproduction, because this is the law of natural selection. Natural selection should be working otherwise the genetic material of mankind would probably worsen due to bad mutations and bad selection.
There are some laws which control the way how we compete for reproduction, for example the law which says "Do not kill" or the one which says "Do not steal". Inside a community, other laws may be created to limit birth rates, like the one-child-policy in China, which is kind of allows one child for everyone, and more children for some people. These laws should be liberal, which means that in theory, everyone should be allowed to beget any number of children if they can serve for it. However, there is one problem with the one-child-policy: it doesn´t seem to be sustainable in evolutionary time, because it is likely that those would proliferate who beget twins and triplets. Well, this could possibly be prevented by technological means, but hereby we search for an ideal, natural way to limit overpopulation (even without contraceptives).
We have come to the conclusion which we may call the principle of birth control: The more able, the more useful and the more fit for life should be encouraged to reproduce, and the less able, the less useful and the less fit for life should not reproduce. Implementations of this principle may differ in time and place, e.g. whether ableness and fitness should be measured by money or something else, or whether the punishment should be excommunication only or something more. After all, the principle remains the same, unless some wonder happens. This principle would make the lives of the children better, because they would get the wealth they need. This principle would also help to reduce the monetary differences between people, because the money which would be inherited would be distributed between the children.
Let's hope that there are humans who are able to voluntarily comply with these ideal laws, who can peacefully accept if they lose in a competition, who don't depend on technology, who act more and more rationally, and who can live really environmentally friendly. Let's hope that such a community would survive and prevail, making mankind better and happier. Until then, it is suggested to limit and reduce human population in many different ways, whatever is acceptable to the different communities and friendly to the environment.
Justice: by ballpoint pen.
Last edited by AF2 on Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.