Well those are nice stat as both prove that populations in both countries have continued to rise, not fall. The one about China also talks about the number being underestimated. In addition to which China has laws about how many children a person can have. In which case the population growth is being artificially influenced lower by the government.
But if you want me to say that it is the norm, instead of the rule, for population growth to decrease as wealth increases then I will. In addition to that, I’ll also say that it is the norm for the population growth rate to drop as women become better educated and have activities outside the home instead of their traditional roles of being ornaments and breeding machines.
Realistically, if you don’t want your life to be dependent on fragile support systems, you’re going to have to head for the hills and build yourself a shack. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but most people aren’t interested.
In that regard, the difference between Mars City and Tokyo is one of details.
Replacing the goonocracies that run (at a lowball estimate) three-quarters of the countries in the world with civilized regimes is a problem that makes flight to Mars – hell, flight to Alpha Centauri – look trivial by comparison.
Uzi:Well those are nice stat as both prove that populations in both countries have continued to rise, not fall.
The Indian and Chinese populations—that is, absolute number of people in the country—are indeed still growing. However, according to those links, their population growth has indeed started to fall: that is, their growth rates are decreasing.
And what you originally said was “It is only after a country becomes wealthy that population growth starts to fall”—which, as I pointed out, appears to be contradicted by the above numbers.
In other words, you seem to have originally got rising population mixed up with rising population growth and made an assertion that you didn’t mean.
If what you were actually trying to say was that absolute population levels don’t start declining until a country becomes wealthy, that’s another matter. (National wealth is still not a sufficient condition for population decrease, though, since there are plenty of very wealthy countries whose populations are still increasing: e.g., Canada, Australia, and the US.)
All of which reinforces my point (in response to silenus) that it is just way too simplistic to argue that space exploration will help “bring everyone up to our level” by infusing “massive amounts of cheap resources”. The relationship among economic growth, fertility rates, and overall quality of life for the non-elite part of a population is a hell of a lot more complex than can be described in a few sweeping generalizations.
(I’m especially struck by your bizarre claim that the “traditional roles” of women in poor societies are “being ornaments and breeding machines”. Poor women do a massive amount of the world’s unskilled and semi-skilled industrial and agricultural labor, both paid and unpaid, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that their roles are limited to the ornamental and maternal.)
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Uzi:Well those are nice stat as both prove that populations in both countries have continued to rise, not fall.
The Indian and Chinese populations—that is, absolute number of people in the country—are indeed still growing. However, according to those links, their population growth has indeed started to fall: that is, their growth rates are decreasing.
I agree with the OP in the long term, although Mars seems to be the only remotely feasible mid term option as a lifeboat/extra basket for the species, (which would not be a particularly long term fix anyways).
Really just replied to provide this link to a NASA page called “Warp Drive When?” http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
About 3 years old, but some interesting stuff. ONe particularly nice chart showing the quantities of propellant required to send a shuttle payload sized package to Alpha Centauri (in a mere 900 years): http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/images/warp/warp06.gif
