Is this also not the plot of Johnny English?

@Damon ofcourse, it's an incredibly harsh measure. We operate with the idea that everyone has the right to live, regardless of fitness, health, disabilities, age, contribution... Even if you were to select 50% of the people to be killed off in a random manner, this is a very unfair way to die. And if you would pick a specific category of people, it would quickly taste like the holocaust. Still, the "what-if" is an interesting discussion.

@MartineVotvik: I agree fully, but try seeing 'saving the planet' as how organisations like greenpeace or gaia would see it. Meaning: drastically reducing our own impact on the natural resources.

My point would be to bet on technology to allow us to have the 'current western lifestyle', with a minimal environmental impact. I would not want to use a small population as an excuse to consume or waste more. I would want to keep the standards we have now, combined with even cleaner cars, more energy-efficient solutions and so on..

Playing the devils advocate: I agree that ethically this is a nightmare. On the other hand, China's one-child policy is very well known, I agree that just letting people die is also terrible. But there are many cases that might be over the top, a 95-year old getting a third bypass for example, or people in long-term comas. Why do we necessarily need to all have a life expectancy of 90 years? Is our quality of life at that point really worth it? Last time I visited a retirement home quite a few couldn't recognize the nurses they see every day. None of them are able to survive on their own.

I agree. But still, in the purplest areas we also have overpopulation issues. 'Unavoidable' traffic jams (Belgium, London,...), skyscrapers worth of flats of people living small and on top of eachother and so on.