Definitely yes

Best Regards Fazleh Mahomed

Dear Fazleh,

There are two side of the problem.

Over exploitation of natural resources for the increasing population is responsible for some issues on the earth.

Higher demand for the fosil fuel for transportation and construction industry (specilly for production cement and steal) is responsible for globle worming.

Higher denand for land is responsible for clearance of forests land decresing biodiversity on teh earth.

Synthesis of artificial material （toxic organic and inorganic cimpound）to cover the comfortable life of increasing population is responsible for the pollution of hydrosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere.

when we think about above, incresing population is responsible for the problem. Therefore, It is important to control human pollution in some extent.

On other hand if we can spend simple lifestyle with natural environment like in ancient ear, large population is not A problem on the earth and It is not requierd to control.

Problem is that we are not ready for that lifestyle.

Therefore, population control is needed for the future of the world.

But I know that birth control is not ethical.

Piyal Aravinna

Yes we do need to limit our numbers voluntarily before famine, war, or disease limit them involuntarily. But population growth is not the only problem--resource consumption is just as important. While population growth may be more of a problem for less developed countries, excess resource use in largely a problem for wealthier countries--and the rising middle class in industrializing countries.

Some feel that population control will be used selectively to oppress certain groups/cultures.

In fact, efforts to establish population control are often a source of violent backlash.

Success is often perceived as number of offspring, in some cultures.

I doubt that population control will ever come around voluntarily. But if it does, then who chooses the method and populations to control?

This is the kind of thing that sets off wars [ which will then sort out the problem...]

Dear Fazleh Mahomed,

Event thought is not in ethical, China took this step in 1979 as “one child per family policy" then it was changed to gradually. As a result of this program, they were able to control population resulting growing economy. However, the objective of the program is not to save the natural resource control or to control pollution control.

For more detail, please read the summarized article given at the link below.

Piyal Aravinna

http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/chinapop.html

Earth is not in risk, humans and other animals are indeed.

Dear Ian,

It is defficult to agree with your statement that "Earth is not in risk"

Piyal Aravinna

Dear Ian,

Population is not a problem for the earth.

There are many resources in the ocean - we must learn to properly exploit them.

Nikola Benin

Dear Nikola Benin,

Yes, there are many resources in the ocean.

But over exploitation of resources and increasing population is an important issue to the earth's future.

Piyal Aravinna

i do not mean that earth is in risk, indeed what i meant to say is that human population increase is not a problem for earth; is a problem for human´s life style (included the current social establishment). Earth will "survive" us like we get over a flu.

Dear Ian,

Yes, you are correct now. more correctly. "life style of increasig population" is responsible for the present damage to the world.

But It is not the only reason.

In future, sometime, conflict/wars among the nations will take the first place.

Piyal Aravinna

Definitely yes

Best Regards Fazleh Mahomed

We are reaching a normal level of stability.

@ Fazleh Mahomed

Yes, we urgently need to control the inflating population of the world for conservation of natural resources, environment and biological diversity.

Thanks!

In my opinion, the human population is not too dense, if calculated from the number of people on the land area of ​​the earth. There are still very large areas that have not been occupied and utilized. Currently, the human population distribution is very uneven. There are very dense areas and there is a very low population area. Therefore, what needs to be controlled is the population distribution. Distribution of population must be more evenly regulated based on land area and natural resources potential...........

Dear Nazaruddin Sinaga,

I think that we have already utilized most of suitable lands for human habitats.

So, What are the remaining suitable lands for habitats ? only forest. we have to protect them for other organisms in the planet.

Also, What are the remaining unsuitable lands for habitats ? deserts and the area covered with snow, and difficult to use those for human habitats.

Even the population is not equally distributed, population density is relatively high now. Therefore, it is important to control the human population in some extent.

Piyal Aravinna

What does "save the earth" mean?

Was the earth somehow better before humans evolved?

Would the earth be better if roaches or some other species were not on it?

Who (besides humans) determines what is "better" and what is "worse?"

Was the earth better 200 years ago when there were 1/10 as many humans on it?

I'm just not sure about the premise of the question??

It appears that more people are living well than every before... more chickens, more sheep, and more cattle ... but maybe not as many lions or llamas.