Recently I heard about the rather radical solution to Japan's problem with abandoned pets. Most countries have issues with homeless animals, in Sweden we have a "summer cats" problem. Some like to get kittens in the beginning of the summer, but once work begins and they realise that kittens grow into cats, they are abandoned. In Japan, it seems like dogs are a new trend and no one wants a "second-hand dog". So to deal with the rising number of homeless animals, Japan has created "dream rooms" aka gas chambers. Holocaust comes to mind? Apparently lots of people in Sweden reacted against the word used: "gas chambers". It makes it sound like the Holocaust. But except them being dogs and cats, what is so different? I believe a life is a life, you cannot put value on different types of life, although I have huge issues following my own philosophy when it comes to spiders (I never kill them myself, I don't dare to come that close) and irritating flies etc. But, I'd like to think that there shouldn't be a difference between killing humans and killing dogs. Who are we to decide who lives and dies whether that who is a dog or a human? We are seven billion people on the planet now, should we start gasing people just cause we're too many? Yes, it's radical and it's horrible, but isn't gasing dogs also horrible? I know some will be very upset by this but I don't understand why it's ok for us to kill off animals to control their numbers but it's completely impossible to mention controlling the numbers of humans on this planet without getting huge reactions. Yes, the Chinese one-child policy is controversial, but it has also been effective and if we don't do something we will ruin our planet. Nine billions by 2050, that simply is not sustainable. To get back to the initial subject, the gasing of dogs, we need to deal with the cause not the symptoms... Same goes for our own population growth.