Started By
Message

re: Population of the entire world. When does it pop?

Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:30 am to
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 12/20/14 at 10:30 am to
I finally read all of that. You have extrapolated a lot of my "beliefs" from my statement about population growth not being out of control. I don't ascribe to hardly any of that. Everything isn't political.

You cited modern medicine, food growing, etc as working in tandem to keep growth out of control. What you fail to factor in is that modern medicine includes abortion and contraception. Even populations that do not have large concentrations of what we consider to be "first world" wealth are demonstrating that, when given the choice, people delay and limit pregnancy, because it allows them more opportunities to accumulate wealth.

That's as far as my beliefs about population trends go. Past models don't work, because reliable contraception changes the entire game. It has only been widely available in the West for 50 years. If you think developing countries which are just now getting access to contraception won't follow suit, then I think you are a pessimist.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
259937 posts
Posted on 12/20/14 at 12:44 pm to
quote:

, it's enough to insure the total population by the end of this century will be well beyond what the planet's resources can support.


Holy cow.

What is the unsustainable number?

The growth rate is continually dropping, why wouldn't that trend continue?
Posted by LanierSpots
Sarasota, Florida
Member since Sep 2010
61579 posts
Posted on 12/20/14 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

Look at Mexico, compared to where they were in the 70s.


Thats because they are all here having babies.

I was in the grocery store last week and there was a Mexican lady in front of me. She had 4 kids with her and none of them were over 10 years old. And she had one in the oven.

This post was edited on 12/20/14 at 12:53 pm
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 12/20/14 at 12:56 pm to
Oh, I'm a pessimist. At least regarding the environment and humans' use of it. As a species we are horrible stewards of the only place we have to live.

You, RogertheShrubber and others have ganged up on me and shown something I was resistant to seeing. That there is a possibility human population growth will actually slow and begin to decline this century. I just hope it's in time to preserve at least some of our environment.

I appreciate the tenacity, especially by RtS, needed to subdue my stubbornness. I think this may be the best thread I've ever participated in because I've learned so much.

Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37581 posts
Posted on 12/21/14 at 12:32 pm to
quote:

Even populations that do not have large concentrations of what we consider to be "first world" wealth are demonstrating that, when given the choice, people delay and limit pregnancy, because it allows them more opportunities to accumulate wealth.


Mexicans are not having babies because they want to accumulate wealth?

Welfare recipient African-Americans are not having babies because they want to accumulate wealth?

You may need to do a bit more homework.
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 12/21/14 at 3:00 pm to
Thanks for starting this thread, Scrooster. It made me think hard and it exposed a deep-set bias I had been unable to see with any clarity until now.

It was a great topic and there was a lot of stimulating discussion. Kudos.
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 5Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter