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.

>>25

Fuck. Malthus penned the idea. That's why it's fucking named after him. And it is the same idea you've fucking got.

I don't see where the part where "populations are too high" and Part of the argument against Malthus and his "Limits to Growth" was that resources are created. Technology allows new resources to be created that didn't exist before because it was just lying fallow in the ground/sea/air/space.

The OP started the thread saying that population caused his whole list of problems, but that isn't the real cause. Population takes a back seat to economic development and technological advancement.

And no if the population of the US was 500 billion, they wouldn't necessarily be poor. It would depend on what they created, and the level of technology. Of course, I too can pull any number out of air and use it as a counter argument.

Srsly. Go read >>9 and >>12 again and come back and tell me they weren't "ZOMG too many ppls in za warudo"