Population Control

I've been reading and I've come to a conclusion that a majority of the world's problems could be diminished by reduction of Developed nations' populations.
Think about it;
Lower population decreases the strain on the environment.
Lower population decreases the cost of goods.
Lower population decreases the strain of social programs.
Lower population lowers unemployment.
Lower population raises wages.
Lower population increases the attention that teachers can give to students.
Lower population encourages more attention put towards a smaller number of children by parents.
Lower population decreases the spread and contagiousness of disease.
Lower population decreases some of the pressures that lead to crime.
Lower population decreases poverty.


Of course, all of these would have to be accomplished by allowing abortions and a change towards "abstinence only" education in public schools.

Nations such as Japan and Italy are reporting negative population growths, coupled with inproved standards of living and higher incomes.

>>18
>>19
Goes both ways, and wtf does science have to do with this, it's just a bunch of ideas in ppl's heads. Nobody has proof.

I pointed out some other famous guy who said it all before you and was wrong; perhaps he missed something, and perhaps so did you.

If the lesson learned from Malthus' error is anything, it would be that population is not necessarily constrained by "academically imagined limits".

In any case, if all we are talking here is hypotheticals, then technology can hypothetically advance to accommodate unlimited, sustainable density.

So which is it, reality or hypothetical?