Over population breeds discontent breeds terrorism.

I am actually surprised that the yank military has not considered a fertility control virus of some sort to defeat international terrorism.

Would seem to me to be far more cost effective than military occupation of terrorist prone regions.

And the yanks don't seem too bothered about world opinion on their unilateralism and collateral military damage perpetrated during their occupations.

So why would they be bothered about world opinion on the use of a biological means of winning the war on terror. It would be some improvement on indiscriminately killing and maiming innocent civillians.

"Alternatively, GregaryB, all of us in western countries (which are using by far the lion's share of the world's resources) could cut back drastically on our living standards as we help to raise those in Third world countries, so that it's all equalised out ? "

Well loudmouth, I absolutely agree with you there. And in fact I have made some sacrifices in my own life to that end.

But hey good luck convincing the majority of westerners, and all the third worlders who would be as greedy and deny their own kind the same
benefits.

If only we lived in a social utopia......but we don't loudmouth so I guess you will just have to deal with what we have.

GregaryB,

A virus is almost impossible to contain, especially in this day and age with the continual movement of people throughout the world. The deliberate release of such a contagion would almost certainly impact the country who released it.

Anyway, terrorism is something factored into the system...it's a matter for those who exercise hegemony in the West to control the minds of the population through the media so that the odd invasion here and there satisfies the agenda.

Of course, this is not an open-ended equation. As the U.S. folds in upon itself, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain its military ascendancy.

*Let's even up the world and let the perpetually-disadvantaged have a fair go*

I think you will find that nature will sort it all out in the end,
Loudmouth. Ignore nature's laws at your peril.

Take a look down a microscope and you'll soon discover that its a
world of bacteria and viruses out there, mammals are relatively
recent.

If you want to catch a fatal bacterial infection, just go into
one of the major hospitals. They are mutating faster then we
can create new drugs.

The species barrier is a reasonable way to minimise mutating
bacteria and viruses. Your world of cheek to cheek humans means
that with one suitable mutation, all your efforts will have been
for nought, nature will have solved it.The tighter you pack em
in, the faster they will die. You'll only have yourself to blame.

"A virus is almost impossible to contain, especially in this day and age with the continual movement of people throughout the world. The deliberate release of such a contagion would almost certainly impact the country who released it."

Poirot that is precisely the point of using a biological vector of some sort, i.e. it would require little logistical effort to spread fertility control rapidly across the globe. And it could not be controlled by governments or terrorist groups.

But as I pointed out, the biological vector chosen would need to be self limiting in some way, as are cold viruses.

You wouldn't want its effects to last for decades or centuries.

GregaryB,

"How can you seriously believe that all 8 billion humans can be raised to western living standard so that we can then reduce our global population."

I think you should reread Squeers's posts, as that is not his line of thinking at all. You'll find, I believe, that he thinks the West should cut its standards of affluence and excess, at least, as a first step to managing the world's finite resources.

I agree with his view - and the fact that it's probably unlikely to happen. Also with Yabby, that the planet usually has ways of taking care of itself.

We're too smart for our own good, but not smart enough to avert catastrophe for our species.