I can see your point about birthrates, but I’ll note that the overall population of the world continues to increase (and seemingly at faster rates - - although this may be another point to debate).
I think the world economy/technology/etc. can be improved to accomodate a larger population, but at our current population level, I see overcrowding, pollution, poverty, dwindling resources, and the crowding out of other animal/plant species that we may or may not rely on for our own survival.
Perhaps there is currently not a “problem”, but looking into the long-term, I’d say we cannot continue at this pace with our current behavior. I’m not trying to be alarmist, but I live in the crowded N.E. U.S. and I see land space problems, water supply problems, and clean air problems already.
Does anyone else remember the name of that interesting book by a Ben Wattenberg(sic?) that if we get too many people on earth, all those people will be non-white and therefore a threat to the entire world?
If 50 million people are added to a base of 50 million, and in the same period of time 500 million are added to a base one (American) billion, which is the faster rate? I and, SFAIK, pretty much everyone would claim that the former is the faster rate, being 100% vs. 50%.
If we’re defining “rate” to mean “absolute number of people added in a given span of time”, then I would argue that:
[list=1]
[li]“rate”, by this definition, has very little significance, and[/li][li]we appear to have passed the peak rate anyway[/li][/list=1]
I’ll repeat once again: The global average birthrate has measurably declined, and not by some insignificant amount. What we’ve seen is a radical change. We’re talking about birthrates dropping from 7.2 to 3.6 in places like Bangladesh. Apply that change to an exponential population growth curve, and you’ll what an incredible difference that makes 2 generations down the line.
We did just come through a pretty big spike in population growth. The ‘baby boom’ in the U.S. was mirrored all around the world. Since that group is still alive, you’re not seeing a drastic reduction in growth. But when they pass through their childbearing years, and then die off, there will be far fewer people in the next generation to replace them, since the next group of people entering their child-bearing years is much smaller than the baby boom generation. That translates into much lower growth, and a rapid increase in the average age of the population.
Incidentally, this is the root of the problem with Social Security. When it was first implemented, it assumed constant birthrates and an unchanging demographic mix (i.e. if 15% of the population is retired today, that’s the same percentage that will be retired 100 years from now). This assumption allowed the SS designers to treat it like a big Ponzi scheme, in which current workers paid taxes which went directly to retirees, with the promise that when THEY retired the next generation of workers would pay for THEM.
But the radical shift in demographics means that there will be far more retired people as a percentage of population in the next 20 years as there was in the previous 20 years, and far fewer workers to support them. So the taxes on the generation entering the workforce now will be much, much higher than on the previous generation, and they won’t get that money back.
Sorry I’ve been offline for a while, unable to post… RL duties sometimes interfere with my internet access.
Akatsukami, I think we’ve finally hit on agreement in your most recent carrying capacity post. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said there.
Sorry, I suppose my statement was too vague. We have vastly increased the amount of absolute wealth on earth. We have not developed economic or social systems that provide much of this wealth to the poor portions of our growing population. The lives of peasants in most of Asia and Africa are indistinguishable from the lives of peasants in those regions hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, and yet population continues to rise in many of these areas. In terms of wealth creation, we have done very well, but it does not provide for the large poor populations on Earth. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor. My wish has not yet been fulfilled, but I can hope for the future.
I have never disagreed with you here.
I disagree because arguements about carrying capacity work two ways: one, in an attempt to dissuade increasing the population beyond a point that can be sustained comfortably; and two, as an arguement against policies that would reduce the potential of the Earth to support its human population, for example in fisheries management. The second issue is more important here because, as many people have pointed out, the best current projections show that the trend of exponential population growth may end in the next century.
These discussions assume that farming is a non-urban enterprise, and discussions of how much land we need to support a given number of people use this assumption. There is, however, such a thing as, believe it or not, urban farming. I read about this a few years ago in Scientific American, and I found a link to the exact article I read:
(PJ O’Rourke, it appears, was on to more than he knew.)
Believe it or not, according to this article, most of China’s metropoloses are self-sufficient when it comes to vegetables. Don’t ask me how they do it, I have no idea.
Imagine if Manhattan grew all its (his?) own vegetables! Or LA or San Fran or Chicago? Pretty amazing thought, eh?
As urbanization increases with development, this supports the posters who say that development is the key to solving whatever population problems appear to be out there, as urban populations certainly use less land per capita, and can apparently put that little bit of land to good use.
