Population Control

2»

Comments

  • Yes, but why is the current population of the planet a problem? That seems to be taken as a given.
  • Well, Western people don't seem to want to use less resources per person. If we allocate the resources currently used by a typical US or UK citizen to each person, we probably come up short. So you either have too many people, or each person uses too much. These aren't different problems - they're different sides of the same problem.
  • If we allocate the resources currently used by a typical US or UK citizen to each person, we probably come up short. So you either have too many people, or each person uses too much.

    Or you accept that it’s ok for some people to have more and others to have less.
  • If we allocate the resources currently used by a typical US or UK citizen to each person, we probably come up short. So you either have too many people, or each person uses too much.

    Or you accept that it’s ok for some people to have more and others to have less.

    No, the thing that you are proposing is that it's OK for the developing world to be a permanent underclass, where it's citizens don't have access to anything like the resources that average citizens of the developed world have.

    That's quite different from accepting that it's OK for some people to have more than others within a particular developed country.
  • If we allocate the resources currently used by a typical US or UK citizen to each person, we probably come up short. So you either have too many people, or each person uses too much.

    Or you accept that it’s ok for some people to have more and others to have less.

    No, the thing that you are proposing is that it's OK for the developing world to be a permanent underclass, where it's citizens don't have access to anything like the resources that average citizens of the developed world have.

    That's quite different from accepting that it's OK for some people to have more than others within a particular developed country.

    Not that different really. Just the same thing but on a global scale.
  • Not that different really. Just the same thing but on a global scale.

    There's quite a considerable difference in magnitude. Plus there's an even greater inheritance issue. It's difficult, but not impossible, for people born in a poor environment in the UK or US to end up as doctors, engineers, or whatever other high-status, high-income career you'd like to choose. It's very much more difficult for people born in Burundi to end up not being Burundian.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    See, I'm wondering whether the number of people on the planet is a problem at all. It's not argued in this thread, just assumed.

    The question of whether any particular population level is a problem is slightly different from whether a population growth rate is a problem.

    If you can zero the growth rate, then whether one population level is better than another is largely a question of the impact of resource constraints on quality of life in the way that Leorning Cnicht is talking about.

    But if the population doubles every X years, then that is a problem in the long term, and depending on how small X is, maybe a problem in the not-so-long term.

    I understand that since 1800, world population has doubled roughly every 80 years.
  • Cameron wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Worldwide Population Growth is already slowing. 50 years ago, the growth rate was 2.2% per year. Now it is 1.05% (source: ourworldindata.org). Just like any virus, once we get below 1.00%, we hit a plateau.

    Studies of ancient Native American civilizations have shown that once they reached the level of population that the environment could sustain they would stabilize. The same is happening on a global level now.

    Not quite. 1% growth means that the population each year is 1.01 times the previous year’s total, so still increasing.

    You have your % and coronavirus R-number in a muddle, I think. Not altogether surprising in these days, when we are all ruled by numbers.

    Doubling at 1% takes 70 years. 66 at 1.05%
Sign In or Register to comment.