I read with great interest Bill McKibben's commentary on global warming ("You're Getting Warmer," December 5). While climate change must be addressed through individual and collective action, it is a symptom of a much deeper problem facing humankind: namely, overpopulation.

There are too many of us consuming precious energy and natural resources. Environmentalists and others concerned about climate change focus on the need to reduce our consumptive behavior. Reducing the number of consumers is another, equally valid but seldom talked-about, approach. Every person clamoring about climate change can have a personal and direct impact on the problem simply by not having any more babies. Nothing more amusing than seeing a bunch of pregnant people at a workshop or rally on the environment.

Population control evokes many difficulties. Human beings, like all living creatures, naturally wish to procreate. Attempts to prevent conception or to interrupt pregnancy instill fears of playing God. Implementation of a program to monitor population pits haves against have-nots and decision-makers against decision-takers. Even if today no more babies were born, the human population would continue to grow from the present-day 6 billion to 11 billion or more before tapering off.

Badly needed population control suffers from a variety of complex emotional issues. In comparison, climate change seems far more rational and practical. It is so much easier to replace my light bulbs with compact fluorescents, or to pass legislation requiring others to replace their bulbs, than to forgo having a family, or to restrict others about the size of their families.

In the short-term, addressing climate change may save us from catastrophe. Yet sooner or later, we will have to look at our numbers and find humane ways to curtail our population. Nature, otherwise, will do it for us in ways not to our liking.

KEN BRISTOL, ROCHESTER