Perhaps, but realistically, who would volunteer? Solar and wind generated energy, mass transit and fewer cars, and a stricter pollution policy and enforcement would probably be more realistic, but that ain't ever gonna happen.

I don't know that familial extinction would be necessary, but familial limitation (i.e. 1 child/family) may be a good method. The reduction in the population would certainly impact the negative impact of man to the Earth. There would need to be a shift in societal perceptions in order to initiate that. Perhaps that would be an easier topic to sway people on than to ask them to reduce emissions, cars, etc.

If any one had any doubts about where the extreme environmentalists are headed, well, here you go. Let's start imitating China and tell people how many children they can have. What these people don't seem to realize is that this is already happening in just about every industrialized nation of the world. Most families in industrialized societies don't have more than two children. This means that they don't replace themselves. The population growth in most industrialized nations is driven by immigration from third world countries. So, the answer to "over population" is industrialization. Of course, the same people who are complaining about over population are also complaining about the evils of industrialized society. Personally, I don't accept the argument that we are over populating the Earth. Some countries may be over populated, but not the world as a whole. I also don't buy the argument that we are destroying the world. Again, we can seriously damage our local areas, but I don't buy that we can destroy the Earth. I would also point out that the free nations of the world are much better at cleaning up their messes than the totalitarian nations are.

Several assumptions in the question: 1. Man is irreperably damaging the earth to the point where we have to start "thinning the herd" to solve problems. 2. A reduction in the population would actually reverse the "damage" done to the earth. With that said, I would argue no. Voluntary killings or "familial reductions" are part of the culture of death that is invading our way of thinking. The 1-child policy of China has lead to an almost casual attitude towards life, especially in the number of abortions and infanticides that occur each year. I could not imagine the world where we vote on which person in our family will die in order to reduce the family's carbon footprint. It has also lead to the idea that we can't repair any damage done or create technologies that will avoid or reduce pollution in the future. Too many people look at what is happening and think that is the extent of what or who we are, and that is far from the truth. Humans have taken huge leaps in the last 50 years and most of them good. We need to continue to foster the idea that humans are the cure for problems that arise and not the disease.

As the number of people who are homosexual & unable to reproduce obese people grows. The entire earths human population will become very gay & jolly. This will will of course cause voluntary familial extinction except for the few genetically inferior & trouble with reproducing invitro babies born. So, yes the damage to the planet will be able to heal itself. Good question.