Although it may not seem like it, rapid population growth is a serious issue. Right now there are approximately 7.125 billion people in the world. National Geographic projects that this number will increase to 8 billion by 2030, and 9 billion by as soon as 2050. With our population growing this quickly, we need to take Earth's carrying capacity into account. Right now much of the world already faces malnutrition and many of our natural resources are on the verge of depletion, so how can we expect the Earth to support even more people? 
There are a few ways we can try to combat this problem. Since poor, developing countries often have the highest fertility rates, or average amount of children each woman gives birth to, making birth control easily accessible and spreading women empowerment may decrease the population over time. Also, as a city modernizes and the economy becomes stronger, families tend to have less children. This is typically because the transition from a farming economy to a more complex and specialized one makes larger families a financial burden as oppo sed to helping hands in the fields. We can help foreign cities to modernize by donating to their schools and hospitals, and helping them acquire access to clean water and fresh food. Another way we can make a difference from our own homes is to be conscientious in using only the resources we absolutely need. There are lots of other ways that can contribute to stabilizing our population growth. If you want future generations to enjoy this Earth as you have, try to do your part.

Omg this is horrible. Decrease the population?! Okay so yes we have a large population but there is evolution and when we all die out because we had to decrease the population then what happens?!

Summer, I know this can come off as a bit harsh, but I am not talking about decreasing the population but stabilizing it. More growth means less resources for everyone, and that can be environmentally and politically dangerous.

Hi Viviana. I completely understand your point. There may still be resources and land for everyone right now, but our need for oil, coal, and other nonrenewable resources has been growing exponentially since the Industrial Revolution. It seems like our children or our children's children will have to deal with the problems we, and the generations before us, have caused. However, I understand summer-skyehiousa's point of view. There seem to be few humane ways that we could actually reduce the population. China's One-Child Policy was an attempt at this, but many people see that as inhumane/immoral. Your proposal that we help developing countries and support their economies is the best, most humane option I can see, but I think a problem is how to accomplish this. An excerpt I read from the following textbook from the University of Cambridge states seems to assert that the many policies and ideas for development are fickle and if there are no immediate results (which happens more often than not), then the idea or policy will be thrown away.

It did come off as harsh and thanks for clearing it up for me. I do agree it could be a good thing to somewhat control population growth but at the same time I also disagree because everyday people die and people are born. Its just the cycle of life

That's what I was trying to say. I mean in some countries you can't have more then one or two kids. Its just not right

That is true, but I think Viviana is trying to say that since the population is growing exponentially and not showing any signs of leveling out, we must try to stabilize it by lowering the death rates of developing countries. This would work because lower death rates means more children living to adulthood, who can help support their parents, which would might then cause fewer children to be born in the first place, and thus, stabilizing the population.

Yes but at the sane time the population gets bigger and smaller everyday

However, the population of the world is still increasing because birth rates are currently higher than death rates. In order to stabilize the population, we would need to lower birth rates or increase death rates. Increasing death rates would mean having a war, famine, illness, or poor medical care. Letting people die in the name of population stabilization seems unreasonable to me. Thus, in order to solve this problem, birth rates would need to be lowered. This might be achieved by supporting developing countries.

I'm sorry increasing death rates what would you like to kill everyone?! And decreasing birth rates isn't exactly good either

Viviana, I completely agree with your point.  The exponential growth rate of the human population has exacerbated every issue regarding climate change, habitat loss, and resource use.  Summer, Viviana was not saying that the death rate should increase; rather, the birth rates should decrease.  As Viviana pointed out, many developing countries have high birth rates that lead to more extreme population growth.  If these countries are empowered by the means of easy access to birth control (for both men and women) and education, women would have fewer children.  Not only is this because families would not have more children for the sake of help for the farm, but if women are empowered more, they will be able to spend more time in education and in their on jobs instead of marrying and raising families at a young age.  Developed countries like Germany are actually experiencing negative population growth because of their aging population and the fact that the country has been developed for so long.  Decreasing birth rates is ESSENTIAL to the climate and habitat crises, because  as the population increases, the allocation of resources becomes even more difficult, leading to increased resource consumption and habitat loss.  With the advanced medicine of today and the ethical issues of "increasing death rates," it is unlikely that death rates will increase in highly developed countries with access to good medical care.

If you would like to read more, this is a great article: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 … n-problem/

I mean I understand it is just totally inhumane