WORDWORLD:


Check out the economic mechanism the runs the system call capitalism. What does it produce. The rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer while the doctrine and article of faith of Democracy is EQUALITY. What a dumbsified world! People are not thinking.

And so we have a world which the net income of the first 100 richest people on planet Earth can end worlds poverty not once but 4times.

And you think human beings have common sense. IF NOT GREED what else is in that heart. https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2013/1/20/1180541/-100-richest-people-could-end-extreme-poverty-in-the-world-right-now

www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2015/01/richest-1-per-cent-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016

5 richest people can end poverty in Nigeria.
https://m.guardian.ng/news/5-richest-people-can-end-extreme-poverty-in-nigeria-says-oxfam/

Your perception of our world is through the lens of capitalism. A system which has breed CLASS WARFARE between the Rich and the Poor. A warfare which the Poor are so much unconscious about.

Like I already said, adequate preparations should be made before bring a child into this world. Which if based on WISDOM should start with a choose of the best of SPOUSE. Truth is, no Condition is permanent. THERE ARE RICH MEN WHOSE CONDITION CHANGES DRAMARICALLY AND END UP POOR. AND POOR MEN DO BECOME RICH. As to the former, what would he do if he becomes poor after being Rich?!

Did you read the BBC link to attached? Deliver, the content of that link is making a fallacy of the hypothesis. It's not a fact but a mere suggestion. Hence it's not TRUE! Go over and read it again.

Of course greed is part of the problem BUT it is the impossible solution to implement. Dismantling capitalism and overcoming greed to end poverty is just impossible. In this situation we have to adopt the solution which is easier to implement. The easier solution to implement is to enlighten people not bring humans into the world that they can't fully look after. This would also play a role to reduce the large numbers dwelling in poverty.

WORDWORLD:
CONTINUED:

"Our critique is that these figures don't say anything about sustainability of cropland, such as the erosion of soil," Blomqvist says.

Wackernagel accepts this criticism, to an extent.
"I would be perfectly blunt - our numbers are certainly wrong. I'm convinced our numbers are underestimates.
"There are aspects on which no good data exists that we don't include, so our demand on nature is larger."

While these figures may not be perfect, Wackernagel says that governments can find them useful as a way of thinking about policies on the environment.
For example, Switzerland publishes ecological footprint estimates on its Federal Statistics Office website. The UK, meanwhile, has formed a Natural Capital Committee to study how the country consumes its natural resources and how long, at current rates, they will last.

Delivar always take your time to read. I like your maturity, but this link as a support of your postulation is very much an HYPOTHESIS not a FACT and indeed 'A WRONG ESTIMATION'.

The link I posted was just to give you a clue. I stated in my post that it would require about 2 earths. 1.6 earths is the precise estimation. The article was against another statement that was saying it would require 4 earths.