That's pretty good for the birth-side of the problem, how about the death side? What's global life expectancy expected to do? I'm not the statistician to be able to tell if that's relevant, but I've got to wonder what extended life expectancies would do for the global population.
Interesting. How come that there always has been poverty? Even with a population that was a fraction of the one we have now. I thought you were logical.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If X% of the world's population live in poverty today, and the population doubles, than obviously we also doubled the people living in poverty. Thus we have more poverty...End of story... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now the real problem is that most likely we will also increase the % of people living in poverty (that is relative numbers for *****), because there is no way we can keep up the living standard of today with this quickly increasing population.
Breeding less will erase poverty because then there won't be anybody left to starve, we must end the cycle of birth in the lower less developed countries.
Exactly. By the way we don't have to mean literally erasing poverty, just reducing greatly. Or not even poverty, but at least starving.. Certainly, breeding MORE doesn't help the problem no matter how we look at it...
I would like to hear some logic behind that. I can tell you why you are wrong of course. Let's assume the population remains the same. People started 'breeding' less and as a result the population reaches a status quo. Nothing will ever change. The current system needs poverty. Let us say people start 'breeding' a lot less. The population diminishes by half. Nothing happens. Still the economic system thrives on poverty. Let us say people start 'breeding' a lot more. The population is booming. Soon a point is reached where our current economic and social system completely collapses. At this point there can be two scenarios. A period of war, anarchy, genocide, disease crashes the population till the old economic system becomes viable again. The cycle starts over again. A period of anarchy, disease, genocide, war, rampant sex, etc is followed by a revolution in our society. Option no.2 gives an opportunity to eliminate poverty. None of the breeding less scenarios do.
There simply is no artificial mechanism that will "control" people in this regard. It is not working in china. It is a basic need to procreate and also to have sex. Even if it were possible, to control the population, it cannot last and WILL have a negative outcome for us. Even slaves in most cultures were allowed to do this, limiting it always has consequences. Life grows, it is that simple and we are part of life. If we are to be successful, beyond earth, we must out grow it. The earth was good to us, it gave birth to us, it nurtured us to where we are now. It's time to move out. Let's not pass away in her basement. If space is not the solution now(and it should be, we should be MUCH farther advanced if we took a different path from 1969), it is the solution eventually. Or it is an early death. These are not humanity's twilight years, we need more children and we need some more space. There is plenty to be had. Yes many people will die, but there will come a time(I HOPE), every life will be precious again and WANTED. At least life of the adventurous sort. Not this slave society some of you imagine.
You are wrong on so many accounts: 1. Artifical controls: laws and taxes. 2. Having sex doesn't equal having children. 3. It is working in China. There are disadvantages, but the population growth in China slowed down. 4. It was for the slaveowner's benefit to have more slaves. 5. You design a spaceship taking away 200K people a day... etc.etc.etc.
You do realise that the situation in China is not that great, don't you? Because of the one child policy and the cultural belief that having a boy is better than having a girl, China is now facing the possibility that there simply will not be enough females to maintain the future population in China. They are attempting to encourage couples to keep their female children instead of aborting them or dumping them, simply because their policy has resulted in a frightening shortage of female babies. In that, the one child policy has failed in China because the future populations can now not be guarranteed, due to the lack of females. As to breeding less in poverty stricken countries. All well and good, but with poverty in such extremes, people have more children to ensure that at least some survive. Think of the depression and the number of large families that came into existence during that time. Having less children will not reduce poverty. It will only ensure that there are less poverty stricken people... because there are less people in the first place.
Sure. But I bet we have like 200 million less Chinese... And this is a problem where ANY solution is going to hurt someone... OK, let's not get carried away. They still have plenty. And they can always reverse the policy...
Humanity makes its bed, then hasn't a clue what to do with it. I can think of two distinct ethnic groups that are working to overwhelm the rest by simply breeding and taking advantage of human rights that are supposed to be in place to protect everyone. It's a contest that no one who has any sense joins in, and no, neither one of those ethnic groups has any sense when it comes to survival. White Protestants have a lot of faults but we're starting to learn something about controlling our population to control the damage that we cause to the Earth. But when we try to make some living room, SOMEONE insists on getting over on it. They don't care if their offspring are drug-addled, shooting each other in the streets, spreading diseases like crazy, and doubling the population of the world every decade. They are primed to be what's left after the system breaks and we are living in a post-holocaust world.
Humanity should not cease reproduction, or even curb it, rather, humanity should quadruple its rate. The more people the better. Technology and space travel will make room. Moreover, it should be considered a moral obligation for the greatest of our people to breed the most.
1. Laws and taxes are slave/master controls. Laws/taxes suppress the strong in favor of the weak. In North America only the elite(masters) can afford to have as many children as they like. The "poor" can also have as many children as they like, blowing their morality through a non-exhistant broken condom. They get a new government check for each one. Why not? It's the only thing NOT REGULATED BY THE EFFING GOVERNMENT NOW. There is your law and taxes in a nutshell. 2. Sex = children, wtf did they brainwash..teach you in that ...university??? 3. China is going to have 200 MILLION unmarried, sexually frustrated conscripts readytogo kick some ass because of it's heavy slave/master system. 4. HUH? are you arguing for me here? 5. Traveling across the Atlantic ocean to north america(or India) was not possible in the 14th century...or at least thought not possible. By the 16th century people were coming by their own steam. By the 17th, businessmen and 18th - poor people, 19th, dirty poor(+criminals!lol) people were coming happily for "free land". Only requirement - adventurous attitude and guts. It will be similar with space exploration and then colonization. It may start small, but it will be exponential growth.
And then we find a way around it. So far, we're winning. Your faith in... mother nature... might be seriously misplaced. Humanity has become Frankenstein's monster. And as a side note - the thing about war is that it is never fought for any of the reasons humans say it is.
