If you were to ask "What are the options" for forced growth deceleration, I could come up with a bunch! Asking what might the "ethically sound" options be puts another spin.
[INDENT]PRO-REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: On first blush, I don't think there's any ethical way to curb reproduction. To my way of thinking - on the individual level - reproduction is very-nearly a "right" of person-hood. To forcibly limit or prohibit reproduction strikes me as wrong, on a fundamental level. The Ends we're Trying to Attain would have to be indisputable, quantifiable and of sufficient force to actually revoke one's right to what they do with their body.
[/INDENT][INDENT]PRO-POPULATION CONTROL: If the human race - and our planet by association - are in *that* much trouble - *that* much dire risk - forcibly curbing reproduction could theoretically be justified. If forced to choose, I'd opt for limiting the number of offspring one could have rather than prohibiting en-masse. But once again, how might this be done? Do we imprison folks? Start executions? Forced abortions? Yes, I could forsee a situation where this might be necessary, but I find the position very hard - even playing devil's advocate - to successfully work through.
[/INDENT]Perhaps there are others out there whose sense of single-answer is greater than mine. This is am ethical pandora's-box; one with big teeth that'll bit anyone attempting to go one way or another.

Thanks

1 a genophage- we have the technology to create viruses that in turn create proteins that can unravel and scramble dna sequences, thus signifigantly eliminating the exponential rate and if one wanted to get super efficient, culling the weak and stupid at the same time.

Personal decision to reproduce is being finacially encouraged in Australia, which I understand for economic reasons but I do not think this practice is environmentally sustainable. Is personal decision not to reproduce being encouraged in England?

Personal decision to reproduce is being finacially encouraged in Australia, which I understand for economic reasons but I do not think this practice is environmentally sustainable. Is personal decision not to reproduce being encouraged in England?

Could you please elaborate on the cause of the sharp decrease in number as predicted by James Lovelock.

But interestingly one of the reasons we are encouraged to have children in Australia is because the richer countries get the less children they seem to have. Of course this has been a problem (?maybe?) in Australia with lots of space & very few people, but does it perhaps show that by raising the living standards we will simply reduce the population increase?
Unfortunately, religious groups often try to sabotage efforts to introduce birth control into poorer countries; do they really want the alternative of seeing half the world's population starving to death?

Personal decision not to reproduce isn't really 'encouraged' I would say - though you do see plenty of newspaper articles on environmental causes. A recent New Scientist article stated simply that avoiding reproduction was the best thing a person could do to ease pressures on the environment. Birth rates are falling here - there is a vague sort of movement to take more care of fewer children I think, though I may just be projecting my own wishes on others here.

James Lovelock, very basically, likens earth to an organism (the Gaia hypotheses). The various forms of life on the planet do not act in concert but mostly balance one another out - like the various microbes that live in a human body.

Occasionally - he theorises - one of these organisms may become very successful. Lovelock likens this to a microbe in your body becoming an infection. He feels that, at the moment, Gaia is suffering from a bad case of humans - like you might suffer from a bad case of flu. The earth is suffering from disseminated primatemaia - a plague of people.

When an organism falls ill there are various options:

* Destruction of host organism (Gaia).
* Chronic infection.
* Destruction of disease organism causing imbalace (Humans).
* Symbiosis - relationship between Host and disease organisms of mutual benefit.

In his great book "Heresies" the thinker John Gray (my favorite contempory philosopher) says:

"The last two can definately be ruled out. Humankind cannot destroy it's planetary host - earth is much older and stronger than humans will ever be. At the same time humans will never initiate a relationship of mutually beneficial symbiosis with it. The advance of Homo rapiens has always gone with the destruction of other species and ecological devestation ... The first is most likely. The present spike in human numbers will not last."

More details here:

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what i suggest is a regulated form of it, there is a species of parasite called Wolbachia...

Gaia's mechansims for treating disseminated primatemaia are familiar, yet I think there is room for our ethical decisions to prevent or minimise the impact of these mechanisms.

Human beings simply do not seem to care what happens after they die. We show no significant desire to protect our environment - we never have...

I've just seen an interesting article about this topic at New Scientist;
The population paradox - 19 November 2008 - New Scientist

A bit more food for thought.

When referenced by distant history, true. However there is in terms of recent history an appreciable growth of interest (reflected in regulatory change) in the environment has occured. The U.S. Energy Department believes that wind power could provide one fifth of that nation's power by 2030. Other studies have shown that wind, solar and biofuel energy could create five million US jobs by 2030. EERE: Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program Home Page It would seem there is room for growth in the economic and environmental sectors. Although as you say it may not be a significant desire to protect the enviroment, it is certainly better than none.

Even if the entire human population used 100% renewable energy and an economy that never failed, we would still have to deal with how do we not overpopulate the earth. Do we risk it and leave it up to a social decision or should we start thinking about the most ethcial way to address this now?

Are you satisfied with the point made by UN Population Fund report, as CarolA has linked,

The UN Population Fund published a report last week pointing out that population efforts must be "culturally sensitive". This is crucial, as the most effective way to bring down birth rates is to empower people to control their own reproduction, free of coercion from within their society or outside.

For the past eight years, the US has not funded birth control efforts, in order to appease religious extremists. Under a new president, many people hope that will change, and soon. Too much time has been wasted.

... if one does not actively and aggresivly grow, one is caught in the preservation stage, and preservation is a temporary phase, leading either to population explosion or stagnation, which leads to extinction

It strikes me that plenty of other organisms have suffered peaks and troughs in terms of number without facing extinction

if one does not actively and aggresivly grow, one is caught in the preservation stage, and preservation is a temporary phase, leading either to population explosion or stagnation, which leads to extinction

What's more, aggressive growth is the last thing we need; on any level and with regards to any aspect of physical human existence. I personally believe that aggressive growth (read: population + industrialization) has put us in the fix we're in. None of our resources we've been so rampantly growing with are either infinite or renewable. At some point in time the "well's gonna run dry" - aggressive growth is therefore unsustainable (at least in terms of the resources we've been expending thus far).

sorry, i was a little tired and wasnt thinking correctly, doesn't make much sense looking back on it, maybe controlling growth would work, but the only method i can see is fiscal enticement, again, my appologies

Growth control would be fine if we as humanity were unhindered by the morality issues behind launching population wars, genophages, etc. Really, the only way we can bring down the population with our current morals still standing would be either planetary colonization or simply waiting it out until, with the sheer weight of the demands of the insustainable population, humanity collapses on itself, bringing back a balance.