Decline Successor Electronically Sign with airSlate SignNow

Decline e signature successor

If we had fewer people in the world, a couple of billion less, we could probably solve a few of the world's biggest problems, right? We could have an abundance of fed bellies, clean water. We would have less-crowded classrooms, less carbon emissions destroying our Earth's future. Fewer people in this world would mean that there would be enough resources to make sure that everyone is fed, healthy, educated, and that our quality of life is so much better than it is today. That idea should sound familiar because it's everywhere. Headlines, TV, YouTube recommendations. The faster we improve health, the faster family size goes down. It's the idea that because so many people, especially in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are having so many babies, our carbon footprint is increasing. And that just means more drowning coastal cities, never-ending fires destroying wildlife, perpetual states of hurricane recovery and increased mass migration. And so if the problem is framed as there just being too many people and not enough resources, then what's the solution if you can't create more resources or lessen the carbon footprint? It's fewer people, right? But is that true? That the answer to the climate crisis and a lack of resources is that impoverished families, again across Latin America, Asia and Africa just need to have fewer kids? That women just need education and birth control and we're on our way to a sustainable planet? Or is the real story here about a monopoly on resources, about the scarcity it created for most of the world's population, about industry practices that are reliant on environmental exploitation? And have we instead been pushing forward a narrative that plays into age-old Euro-American ideas about eugenics, border policing and which populations are deemed burdensome? Welcome to "Backspace," where we tell you how the story is told in the headlines, and then we think about how we can tell it a little differently. Like a lot of bad ideas, the basic premise of overpopulation and the solution to it come from an economist. In 1798's "An Essay on the Principle of Population," Thomas Malthus argued that the larger the population is, the greater the stress on resources and the greater the occurrence of poverty. And so the only way to avoid catastrophes such as famine, food scarcity and ensuing strife would be to decrease the number of births. At face value, it seems logical, and at this point very familiar. But it's an argument that has not only been more or less debunked, but relies on a premise we automatically believe is true because we've been told it is. And that invariably leads to looking at where the fastest growth of population are happening and asking, "What can we do to slow this down?" Researchers say there is a much better way to reduce our carbon footprint than driving hybrid cars, using energy-saving bulbs and recycling. Just have fewer children. -The skyrocketing world population is apparently affecting the environment. The...