Today the world population amounts to about 7.37 billion inhabitants, according to estimates will reach 11 billion by 2100, putting a strain on already limited resources left to the planet.

Add the rising pollution, global warming and the fact that there will be more people who will try to steal your personal space, and the future outlook assumes anything but inviting tones.
Even without counting the risks involved, that overpopulation remains a thorny issue.
The term "birth control" brings to mind dictatorial regimes that deny the human right to procreate, but since our the only animal species that can decide whether to have many children (and understand the consequences of this choice) or less, is it not time to examine the options available to us?
I talked to Michael E. Arth, city planner, environmentalist and former political songwriter about overpopulation.
Michael E. Arth shaking hands with some of his supporters during the campaign of 2010 in Florida.
Photo via
VICE: What do you think of the UN projections?
We are looking at an uncertain future? Michael E. Arth: The projections do not take into account two things.
The terrible consequences that population growth is having on the environment and the possibility of a substantial extension of the expectation of human life.
Will the research to extend life?
Exact.
Many researchers, including Aubrey de Gray's SENS, are studying how to extend the life span.
Maybe in a hundred years we can solve problems related to aging and death.
But, in that case, it will be even more difficult to stop population growth.
If people live longer, as it addresses the issue of overpopulation?
That's why we have to get started right away.
Wait only exacerbates the problem.
The world's population grows by 220,000 people a day, counting the 155,000 who die.
It is like the head of a hydra: for every person who dies, is born more than one.
As if every year we add the populations of England, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand to the current world population.
Politicians do not address the issue because they aim at issues that cause them to be re-elected in the short term and the companies that want to influence them an increasing number of consumers.
A sign in Nanchang, China, which reads, "Please, for the good of your country, use the" contraceptives.
Photo via
And as has been previously addressed the problem, when it is actually been addressed?
I think the one-child policy in China, for example, now being revised.
If it was not for her birth control policies, China today would have more than two billion people.
Nevertheless, since 1978, when the control measures have worsened due to the increase in the birth rate, there was an increase of 350 million people.
Given the boom in births under Mao, the average age has been drastically lowered.
When this surplus of young people began to have children, the population has grown faster than any nation to diverse demographics.
So not even the limit of one child per couple is enough to stop population growth.
For China and the rest of the world would be better to adopt a "birth credit" system that could stop or reverse population growth.
The credits allow people to have as many children want and how much they can afford, and reward people who are willing to give up that right.
At a financial level?
Yup.
The market would determine the price of a credit.
The cost of credit would be a fraction of the overall cost of maintaining a child.
The system would work very well because it is a small price to pay to fix the problem and respects the right to procreation.
Each person should be provided with half of this credit, he or she can combine with a partner to have a baby.
Alternatively, a person may sell his half of the market price of credit.
Each additional child would require another credit.
Failure to follow this rule would result in much higher than the price of credit fined the same and there would be sanctions for countries not participating in the program (such as restrictions on emigration).
Historically, in the United States we have policies that support larger families, even if their parents can not afford to keep them or do not care about the good of the children.
To get more help from the state, all you need to do is have more children.
This inevitably encourages playback.
The mathematician Bertrand Russell, writing sopvrappopolazione at a time when the population was half of the current one, said, "The human race would rather commit suicide than to learn arithmetic."
Humans have evolved to be able to face natural disasters, tornadoes and earthquakes, but the global disasters to slow development, such as overpopulation, they are ignored.
We are only beginning to talk of its consequences-global warming, pollution, lack of resources, wars and immigration-but we must address the root problem.
It is not unethical to limit the number of children?
The limit of our personal freedom resides in the moment in which the exercise of individual rights violates the collective rights.
One aspect of this tragedy is the belief that human beings have to reproduce without any respect for others.
For 99.9 percent of human history, family planning has never been necessary.
Part of children died during childbirth and nature will kill another part with disease, famine and war.
Now that we are improving the quality of life and extending its duration, we have to adjust to the continuously changing reality.
The introduction of credits is the best compromise in the dilemma between individual and collective law, because the choice is preserved and the common good has a better chance of being protected.
Before talking about immigration.
What role in all this?
The solution to the pressure exerted by immigration is not block borders.
The solution is to put a stop to the overpopulation in developing countries, where economic and environmental problems are forcing people to move.
People used to low levels of consumption that move to rich countries not only start to consume at a faster rate, also they tend to bring with them the typical reproductive habits in your country.
I see.
Ensuring access to education for women, raise living standards and provide contraceptive methods are all contributing to lower the birth rate.
Take the credit system would contribute.
If we had addressed these problems in 1985, two million people in the world-who are now living on less than two dollars a day-would never be born.
There is an optimal threshold of population growth?
I do not deny that this speech sounds a bit 'Fascist.
We have passed the seven billion in 2012, two billion more than in 1987.
Lower population growth to zero is the minimum to which we should aspire, but a negative growth would help us to prepare ourselves for a future with a long life expectancy.
We should not risk it, because this is the only habitable planet we know and that the solution does not require any new type of technology.
He thinks there is a chance that if they will not apply policies, famines and wars will increase, reducing the world's population in a much more drastic?
We have already seen the effects of overpopulation, poverty, wars, epidemics, scarcity of resources and food shortages.
In the Haiti earthquake of 2010, 220,000 people died, mainly due to conditions resulting from overpopulation, which caused deforestation and destruction of a country was once known as "The Pearl of the Antilles".
Those 220,000 people have been replaced on the same day as new births worldwide.
Rely on natural disasters to control the world birth rate is stupid and cruel.
At one point we even make us smarter.
If you really feel compassion for each other and we want a good quality of life for all, then we have to deal with reality and get to work.

From Vice