World population

[Jason]

The occidental lifestyle of excessive consumption and waste is certainly a concern, especially now that it is no longer strictly occidental (Japan for example).

The efficient use of available resources will become a concern, but not nearly as much as the guarding and acquiring of available resources and I'm not speaking of crude oil.

[mistermack]

Ignorance is bliss. Do not concern yourself with the evils of humanity young Padawan. Life has nearly been extinguished on this planet many times before and there is no reason for the human race to survive.

If ALL of the female fetuses in China were aborted, I wouldn't care. So ignorance of the figures doesn't come into it. I don't regard it as evil. I would just prefer for their own well-being that they used better contraception, rather than get pregnant.
If there are too many men, and not enough women, in 20 years time, that will reduce the birth rate too.
More reasons to celebrate.

[charlou]

Population isnt as important as its lifestyle.

I use more resources than an entire village of Ethiopians , an American more
A typical first pet world dog uses more resouces than an African

If we regess to the level of 'sustainable consumption' of the third world things will get better? There is something wrong with this argument but I can't think what.

I didn't read his observation as anything other than observation.

[Jason]

Ignorance is bliss. Do not concern yourself with the evils of humanity young Padawan. Life has nearly been extinguished on this planet many times before and there is no reason for the human race to survive.

If ALL of the female fetuses in China were aborted, I wouldn't care. So ignorance of the figures doesn't come into it. I don't regard it as evil. I would just prefer for their own well-being that they used better contraception, rather than get pregnant.
If there are too many men, and not enough women, in 20 years time, that will reduce the birth rate too.
More reasons to celebrate.

Whatever you say. I'm going to drink a cup of tea.

[charlou]

Population isnt as important as its lifestyle.

I use more resources than an entire village of Ethiopians , an American more
A typical first pet world dog uses more resouces than an African

If we regess to the level of 'sustainable consumption' of the third world things will get better? There is something wrong with this argument but I can't think what.

I didn't read his observation as anything other than observation.

Reread it .... okay, I can see your point, Crumple.

I think lifestyle is not a factor to be dismissed, though. In fact, it affects population, and vice-versa.

[Rum]

One thing is for sure. One way or another it will come down in due course.

[Exi5tentialist]

Actually, I did read recently that Brazil has dramatically cut it's population growth.
I was amazed to read it, for the country that has the most Catholics in the world. But apparently, Brazilians are beginning to ignore the church, and plan for just one or two kids.

If Brazil can do it, any country can. You just need to loosen the grip of the churches, and improve education.

Poverty is the main cause of rapid population growth, not churches. People have children as a resource. Children work, they care for you as you age (rapidly). They are an essential unit of production for the poorest families. Of course as prosperity increases there is less need to produce another breadwinner in short order. That's what's happened in Brazil. I'm sure, coincidentally, people take less notice of the church too.

[Pappa]

Calm down dears, the rate of increase is decreasing.

In 50 years time it will have levelled out. No need to reach for the machine guns just yet.

This is true - it should level off around 9 or 10 billion.

Unless, of course, the life expectancy levels of people keep going up. And they are, and they will. In other words, it could go higher than 11 billion.

Every time a theoretical upper limit to world population has been proposed, it has been surpassed. I don't think we're anywhere near the limit of what it could (and maybe will) be one day.

[Exi5tentialist]

Calm down dears, the rate of increase is decreasing.

In 50 years time it will have levelled out. No need to reach for the machine guns just yet.

This is true - it should level off around 9 or 10 billion.

Unless, of course, the life expectancy levels of people keep going up. And they are, and they will. In other words, it could go higher than 11 billion.

Every time a theoretical upper limit to world population has been proposed, it has been surpassed. I don't think we're anywhere near the limit of what it could (and maybe will) be one day.

The birth rate is declining.

[Atheist-Lite]

Calm down dears, the rate of increase is decreasing.

In 50 years time it will have levelled out. No need to reach for the machine guns just yet.

This is true - it should level off around 9 or 10 billion.

Unless, of course, the life expectancy levels of people keep going up. And they are, and they will. In other words, it could go higher than 11 billion.

Every time a theoretical upper limit to world population has been proposed, it has been surpassed. I don't think we're anywhere near the limit of what it could (and maybe will) be one day.

The birth rate is declining.

...and the population is ageing.

The birth rate declines in a behavioural sink before numbers crash.

[JimC]

Actually, I did read recently that Brazil has dramatically cut it's population growth.
I was amazed to read it, for the country that has the most Catholics in the world. But apparently, Brazilians are beginning to ignore the church, and plan for just one or two kids.

If Brazil can do it, any country can. You just need to loosen the grip of the churches, and improve education.

Poverty is the main cause of rapid population growth, not churches. People have children as a resource. Children work, they care for you as you age (rapidly). They are an essential unit of production for the poorest families. Of course as prosperity increases there is less need to produce another breadwinner in short order. That's what's happened in Brazil. I'm sure, coincidentally, people take less notice of the church too.

From what I've read, your main point is correct, but the malign influence of the conservative elements of the catholic church is still a factor in hindering a reduction in birth rates; hopefully a waning one...

My liberal catholic friends in Oz totally ignore the medievel bullshit their church spouts about the evils of contraception...

Hopefully, the thin end of the wedge...

[mistermack]

Poverty is the main cause of rapid population growth, not churches. People have children as a resource. Children work, they care for you as you age (rapidly). They are an essential unit of production for the poorest families. Of course as prosperity increases there is less need to produce another breadwinner in short order. That's what's happened in Brazil. I'm sure, coincidentally, people take less notice of the church too.

There has been no sudden elimination of poverty in Brazil. There is growth there, but plenty of poverty.
Even the experts there are mystified by the drop in the birth rate, which seems to be a change of attitude of women. (according to the article I read. I wish I'd kept the link).

I agree historical poverty is generally the driver of high birth rates, but the churches certainly do wield a big influence in the more poorly educated countries. Education of women was mentioned as a possible reason for the change in Brazil.

[Exi5tentialist]

Poverty is the main cause of rapid population growth, not churches. People have children as a resource. Children work, they care for you as you age (rapidly). They are an essential unit of production for the poorest families. Of course as prosperity increases there is less need to produce another breadwinner in short order. That's what's happened in Brazil. I'm sure, coincidentally, people take less notice of the church too.

There has been no sudden elimination of poverty in Brazil. There is growth there, but plenty of poverty.

At no point did I say that poverty had been 'eliminated' in Brazil. We are talking about relative changes over time, and there has been a significant increase in wealth in Brazil in the last 20-30 years.

Even the experts there are mystified by the drop in the birth rate, which seems to be a change of attitude of women. (according to the article I read. I wish I'd kept the link).

There are various explanations country by country but there nevertheless GDP growth and birth rate decline do seem to happen at the same time more or less everywhere.

I agree historical poverty is generally the driver of high birth rates, but the churches certainly do wield a big influence in the more poorly educated countries. Education of women was mentioned as a possible reason for the change in Brazil.

Education of women is a function of increase in wealth. Churches probably do wield a big influence, but not big enough to counter the increase in wealth. Please do not misquote me, I am not arguing that everybody in Brazil is suddenly rich. We are talking about relative trends, not absolutes.

[Atheist-Lite]

The birth rate is declining because human beings are moving from population growth towards a steep collapse in human population. This is the top of the rollar coaster folks - it won't go any higher but will go down, quite fast. Are you ready for your future?

[JimC]

The birth rate is declining because human beings are moving from population growth towards a steep collapse in human population. This is the top of the rollar coaster folks - it won't go any higher but will go down, quite fast. Are you ready for your future?

Crumple, thy name is schadenfreude...