This sounded like a really good idea when I first read about it. There's a Wikipedia article on it which states Al Gore's 5 strategic goals "to save the global environment". Unfortunately I am vastly sceptical that the first of his goals is at all achievable before the global environment is permanently damaged. Yes, I'm back onto overpopulation again.
People discussing overpopulation generally make assume that if global population can be stabilised civilisation will follow suit and we will skip merrily into utopia. Before any discussion of the benefits of ending runaway population growth, and even depopulation (anyone care to point out the difference to society between a global population of 6 billion and one of 1 billion?) you must first address the likelihood of achieving such a goal, otherwise you are just wasting hot air. Compare this to a discussion on the best way to expend 3 wishes.
My points are:
- The global economy is driven by the cheap labour produced by high birth rates in developing countries
- Virtually all religion abhors the concept of antinatalism
- The same high birth rates that keep the economy functioning allow more repressive cultures to demographically assault more liberal ones via "the wombs of our women".
The obvious answer would be to adopt an ethical foreign policy a la Robin Cook that might allow immigrants to respect the UK and Europe as a Nation. A brief review of the various policies of the past half-dozen governments of this country shows how unlikely this is. So, if a passive policy has no chance of success one must begin to consider active policies which might encourage immigrants to embrace the enlightenment ideals of our society in preference for their own misogynist, racist and religious values.
Unfortunately I cannot begin to imagine a way of doing this that does no betray the very philosophy it seeks to promote.