There are too many of us already, and we must not let our numbers grow even further beyond what Earth's resources can provide. If we want to keep/improve our current standard of living, those who are able should take precautions.
A few of the more extreme ideas (i.e. killing off "unnecessary" members of a population), while theoretically efficient, seem elitist and unnecessarily drastic and cruel from a human standpoint.
Then there are people who believe in the ideal that either nature or an all-powerful being will eventually "balance out" our growing numbers (Eywa?). Yes, people die every day, but lives taken by disease epidemics, natural disasters, or wars should not be thought of as expendable just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In spite of the vast number of natural selection believers, we humans can take advantage of a very simple option to keep our numbers in check.
The total world population will reach about 9 billion in the year 2042, up from the documented 6 billion in 1999. Over 43 years, that's a 50% increase, or an additional 3 billion people. That's simply too many!
Some world governments presently have population limitation programs in place (China), or are developing new forms of contraception.The human race can stop overpopulation at the source by not having as many children as we currently do. Some may consider this lowering of the planet's birth rate to be an extreme or even blasphemous idea, but many believe that it's exactly the kind of cautious and expeditious measure we need to take. Mathematically speaking, this reduction is certainly not a quick fix, but it is definitely more humane than selective euthanasia. Simply put, it focuses not on ending lives that already exist, but on creating lives less frequently.
I think it's almost becoming a necessity at this point. It's pretty evident by now that we've gone beyond a sustainable population. So what do you think?
Should governments step in and limit population growth?
You can really answer that question with just a yes or no. Or you can explain your answer. It's up to you.
--Mitakuye Oyasin - Lakota Oyate 17:11, January 10, 2010 (UTC)