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.

>>27
Malthus didn't come up with the idea. It's obvious. If people are eating all the food that they can possibly produce then something happens like a drought which means they can't produce enough food to feed everyone they starve. Malthus was the guy who said the state should control population growth to prevent poverty. Marx said that malthus is wrong and that tyranny causes proverty.

I say poverty is caused by 100s of different factors, tyranny and corruption plays a role, but so does drought and overpopulation.

Do you want to support ideas which reduce poverty or do you want to fuck around?