The more salient argument [for the proposition that reduced natural increase would foster economic growth] is that the early start of family planning programs may have lowered the eventual global population by one or two billion people, a margin that could prove critical in terms of pressure on food, petroleum, water, and other resources. Without that reduction, our carbon footprint would certainly be greater.Driving our species to extinction would reduce our carbon footprint even further. There would be no pressure on food, petroleum, water, and other "resources." Nobody would be hungry, thirsty or poor.
October 23, 2008
Population control: the advantages of going extinct
John C. Caldwell writes in a book review in Nature: