Somehow, someone smarter than us will have to figure out a humane way to get the planet's population under a billion by the year 2100.

That requires not only the western world to massively shrink their reproduction rate, but to get Africa and Asia to do likewise.

Beyond that, considering the ecological importance of Africa, we should encourage emigration from the continent so that as much of it as possible can return to the wild. In the process, we can attack poverty by getting people away from isolation in unsustainable areas, and bring them to America to work in the restaurants and nursing homes that will see more and more job shortages as the population ages and fewer western young people are available or willing to take these jobs.

Otherwise, the only way to end poverty in Africa will require more farms, warehouses, rail lines, highways, mining, etc. And last thing Africa needs right now is bulldozers and monoculture.

I fully understand the importance.

Perhaps the articles I was reading a few years back are dated and aren't the most up-to-date on this, but from what I read it appears that we will reach a population peak of about 11 billion by 2050 then start a slow decline in our population. Our population by itself isn't that big of a problem. Our excessive consumption is. The one thing that drives a lower population growth rate (and eventual shrinkage) is a more educated and more affluent population. Unfortunately, that also drives more consumption.

It takes time to stop the population boom, as in a generation or two. There is a direct correlation between the literacy rate of women and their birth rate. The more educated (literate) a woman is, the fewer children she will have, statistically speaking. Additionally, to really allow someone to pursue an education, you have to get them out of starvation mode. As soon as food is consistently there, then excess energy can be spent on endeavors other than finding more food. Energy can be spent on stuff like learning how to read.

Bangladesh is a perfect case study in how improving the literacy rate of women can quickly decrease birth rates.

Another interesting region is South America. The birth rate there has plummeted from 6-7 children per women in the 1960s to around 1.9-2.5 children in 2010. Oddly enough, Spanish Soap Operas have been credited with be one of the major factors driving that birth rate down, but that will be the subject of a different rant.

Sorry if I came across preachy. Population is a topic that I really got into reading all I could a couple of years back.

It makes the rest of your post absurd as well.

Maybe you forgot this: ?

...with respect to humans finding a humane method to reduce current global population by a billion by end of this century, much less down to only 1 billion total. Scary thing is, our planet, our planet's biosphere, our innate human stupidity or all of the above may do it for us (or to us) by 2100.

Of course according to the conservatives, you should stop having sex if you don't wish to procreate.

all the anti H1B people will be begging for them

but you're going to be so flamed here on DU ......

It's not the best solution. The cause is largely republican education policies from the federal level on down, and the true solution is to get them the hell out of it. But in the meantime, to avoid ruin, the H1B is a good stop-gap solution.

(That will create problems of its own, long-term, if we keep relying on it, rather than fixing the problem)

Your mindset and third way nonsense is exactly why I won't vote for Hillary.

These crazies that have kids by the dozen, don't pay any taxes and burden the system with their spawn. They should pay their fair share, rather than getting loot from the System.

I can remember, as an Only Child, the school telling parents that if they had more than 2 kids the tuition would be FREE! Most families lived in tiny one or two bedroom apartments where siblings slept in a sofa bed in the living room together. I slept in that same sofa bed with my Nana. More than 2? WHERE would you put them? Yeah, these CATHOLIC parents obviously used (horror) birth control to limit the number of children they had even back in the 50s. Free tuition was not an incentive to have more kids. I did not know any kids growing up who had more than 2 or tops 3 siblings.

We've got a long way to fall before we get to that point. We will not achieve this reduction by any voluntary means, humane or not. Not even global war has the necessary killing power. Only famine and disease have the power to quickly reduce human numbers to less than 1% of what they are today.

Six estimates of a sustainable human population:

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html

One says 4 billion, one says 1 billion, the others are dramatically smaller, and sound ridiculous to me.

Only the lowest three bars on the chart are realistic, believe it or not. All the others are unsustainable.

to how and what resources are utilized.

Thus, if 100% of the population used firewood for energy, the sustainable number will be lower.

If 100% of the population used solar energy and ate food from hydroponic greenhouses, the sustainability number will be much much higher.

With as much resources as an American consumes, this is good for the planet. America isn't everything.