The article link :
https://legacy.carnegiescience.edu/news/war_plague_no_match_deforestation_driving_co2_buildup


I believe it is possible to sustain without killing anybody if we "tax" children. Families that have more will pay more to government. It could also be called the "new citizen" care law.

Children are new citizens that receive services without paying back (as public school in most countries).

-------------

I have found a solution along the lines. If the *children benefits* is reduced or scale less with number of children, families will make less to save finances.


It is actually a nice article :

http://www.worldwatch.org/nine-population-strategies-stop-short-9-billion




I *discovered* scientific forums and some topics discuss population control. Some solutions is education, sex education and quality of life.
With sex education, you can avoid unwanted children.
With education, you may make better life choices, trying to give more to a single kid or have more interests than *tribal sex rites*.
With quality of life, children are sometimes used to work for family or in factory. So it may make sense for some families to make many children as a free workforce.

Wouldn't the large amount of horses, sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle Genghis and his hordes brought while they killed produce natural gases?

Those all actually helped the food supply.

Again i must say, overpopulation is not an issue. The issue is distribution. And primarily, the distribution is issued in Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Does economic equality help population stability ?

Higher income is often linked with less children.

Top 20 countries (70% world population); more factors can be added; maybe I will add practical population density (let's face it, Moscow and European Russia do not have 9 folk per square kilometre.

http://imgur.com/DTpLXsk

Looks like population density is winning so far.

http://imgur.com/a6geY00

Edited 9/19/2015 05:46:18

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-war-on-air-pollution-may-cause-more-global-warming/


Cleaning air can also increase global warming.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-energy-causes-global-warming/20231


Nuclear Reactor also increase global warming with *long* wave radiation....






------------------------------------------

It seems to be written by trolls. I don't see how nuclear is not un-ecological. Radiation from nuclear *should* be about the same as the one coming from the ground naturally to respect International Max Rad Units.




******

What actions can be taken to stop energy consumption ? Is animal power less polluting ?

Is human/animal labor less polluting than machines ?




It is possible for a reverse industrialization ? Human replacing machines. Job for everyone and *useless* product output greatly reduced.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization

Edited 9/23/2015 01:43:22

Truthfully, the only way we'd be able to stop pollution caused by manufacturing would be to spend trillions in order to mine metals from mars/moon and manufacture them there, then ship them to Earth.

Or stop manufacturing.

How about better recycling ?

Examples :


Fill your own bottle. Wine industry new option for consumers.

More recycling centers.

Full value of "material" paid to consumer.

A crafting center.

Currency on base matters like metals/wood. Alternative currency.
It becomes wealth and people care.