Hmmm...
http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/greenview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14488619&fsrc=nwl
I fail to see why trying to persuade people not to have children is the solution they come up with. It seems clear that their reasoning would be aided more by arguing for the mass killing of large number of people. That would guarentee a smaller footprint as: A) dead people don't do very much, and B) don't have kids who do much either. I think looking for a solution to creating a planet that can sustain higher amount of human life is a better idea, but thats just me.
I fail to see why trying to persuade people not to have children is the solution they come up with. It seems clear that their reasoning would be aided more by arguing for the mass killing of large number of people. That would guarentee a smaller footprint as: A) dead people don't do very much, and B) don't have kids who do much either. I think looking for a solution to creating a planet that can sustain higher amount of human life is a better idea, but thats just me.