The topic on how the growing human population changes the world is an important part in trying to control and lower climate change. As the generations of humans go through time, the climate is worsening, and in twenty generations, the climate will be a lot different, if humans continue to live like they do now. Humans effect on the environment largely and since there is so many of them, there is question on whether the world should limit reproduction to help the climate for future generations, or to not do anything. The U.S. produces a sizable amount of emissions for its size, but it does not get to see the effects of what they are doing. Other places in the world that are less fortunate however do. Caring about future generations is a moral controversial issue. The philosopher Sideye Reader's opinion on the issue sounds crazy to some. She says,” Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” It sounds more simple than it is when put this way but for some this can be hard lifestyle.
New acts and laws are being put into place to help  the climate change issue, but not fast enough: at the rate emissions today, the effects will be seen fairly soon. Several billion people are projected to being added to the world's population, so banning people to have more than one kid seems like a good idea. Adding to that, the consequences of not doing this are high because the temperature will rise about 4 degrees, meaning that more droughts and heat waves will happen, making survival harder. Most people today are just saying, just have kids, when the time comes everything will be fine which could be a problem considering that lowering population could be the answer to helping the change. Studies show how one fifth to a quarter of the climate change will be solved. For the future of humankind to feel safe, measures like this need to be put into action.
For the past thirty years, China made a policy that made it illegal to have more than one child. This policy is good control on lowering population. The rate of overpopulation would slowly lower. Recently, China has turned off this policy, making solutions to this topic scarce in the world. A life of suffering from the effects is worse than not having one at all, so another policy like this could help.
"Anti-Evolution and Anti-Climate Science Legislation Scorecard: 2014." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Link: https://ncse.com/climate-evolution/anti … -scorecard

I did the wrong citation for this one. Here is the real link for this topic:
Ludden NPR, By Jennifer. "Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?" KQED
https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/08/18 … te-change/

Ever since taking AP Human Geography in my sophomore year, I have been interested in the negative effects of overpopulation. I became especially interested in overpopulation when I visited my home country the Philippines a couple years ago. The capital city, Manila, has the highest population density in the world at 41,014 persons per square kilometer and a population of 1,581,000. Many other cities in the Philippines also occupy spots on lists citing "cities with the highest population density." When you step foot in Manila, you can really feel the population density. There are crowds of people wherever you go and the traffic is perpetually awful (it once took me 2 hours to drive 20 kilometers). The smog always causes my eyes to tear up and I develop horrible allergies after a few days there. Out of curiosity, I just searched for some information on Manila's sustainability, and to no surprise, I found an article ranking Manila as the fourth most unsustainable city in the world. Other cities ranked the most unsustainable also appear to have a problem with overpopulation.

I remember talking to some of my cousins while visiting the Philippines and the topic of kids was somehow brought up. To my dismay, all four of my cousins said they wanted 4 or more children in the future. I was floored. Could they not see the terrible effects of overpopulation?! Then it occurred to me that their education on sustainability and climate change and whatnot was significantly less than what we're taught in America.

I strongly believe that putting limits on how many children someone is allowed to have will significantly reduce climate change. It's morally controversial to apply such laws onto people because it is definitely harsh and limiting of personal freedom, but overpopulation is a real issue. Climate change is a real issue. An alternative to such laws would be to improve education and awareness on sustainability worldwide. However, this is especially difficult in developing countries where basic education is not easy accessible, thus a child-limiting policy might be a better fit for some places.

Your post was very informative and I'm very grateful you brought the topic up!!

sources: http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.co … -or-delhi/
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/20/worlds … ide_2.html

Fiona, thank you for bringing up the issue of overpopulation. Your post made me question why China decided to turn off its 1 child per a family policy and I looked into it. According to the Guardian, China was concerned about its economy and how to maintain its growth. Additionally China decided to implement a policy allowing 2 children per a couple as a response to the aging population. Although China is doing it for its economic benefit, it does not seem to take into account the consequences of overpopulation and its effect on climate change.  Also there were some human rights controversies regarding the 1 child policy and the methods of sterilization.

In addition to researching why China canceled the 1 child policy, I looked into their efforts to combat pollution. China has pledged to spend $275 billion over the next 5 years to clean up the air and $333 billion for water pollution. China is one of the biggest investors in renewable energy. However the government has been inconsistent with these efforts even though environmental NGO community is pushing it to stay on  track. As I see it, China is not doing enough to lessen climate change and by turning off the 1 child policy it will contribute even more to pollution. China is lessening its use of coal, however, it is not enough to solve these problems. Like you and Dana have said, I agree that capping the number of children a family can have is a good idea to stop overpopulation, which contributes to climate change and pollution. However, I think we need to do more than just have a limit on population. Do you have any suggestions?

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ … ild-policy
www.cfr.org/china/chinas-environmental-crisis/p12608

Hi Fiona I agree that over population could become a problem, however I do not believe that it is the answer to reversing climate change, or even the answer to trying to reduce our carbon foot print. I believe that instead of not having those children, we need to educate them on the growing problem. We know that what we are doing now will effect our children and our children's children but instead of reducing the amount of humans on earth, we need to learn how to live with the earth without hurting it, and we need to teach that to our children. Telling humans they have a limit to the amount of life they can bring into our world seams like something out of a dystopian book, and I personally believe is morally incorrect, but that is just my opinion.

We need to find a way to reverse the damage we have made to our earth, without eliminating the freedom of birth. Our carbon emissions are clearly effecting our atmosphere and harming the life of animals in the ocean. We need to find a way to reduce our carbon footprint, without bringing our freedom of birth into the picture.

Hi Fiona, I agree with what you are saying. When there is too much people, we would have to turn more land into housing, killing the homes of many species of animals.