Firstly, the problem would be solved only when the total population actually starts decreasing, until then there is always the risk we will hit the maximum we can feed before it's peak.Blind groper wrote:On the population explosion bullshit.
I will probably have to point this out at least a thousand times and then repeat myself.
The population explosion is over. Average global fertility is now 2.55, down from 5.5 about 50 years ago. The population continues to grow due to the increase in life span rather than any great birth rate. Most western nations have fertility less than 2.2, which is replacement rate. The United nations monitors these changes, and know that fertility continues to drop. Their projections run to global average fertility of 2.0 by 2050, which is well below replacement rate. Increasing life span will allow population growth a little beyond that, but it will peak out at about 10 billion (plus or minus the error factor) by 2100, after which the population will be in decline.
So each and every one of you posters who predict disaster based on increasing population are talking bullshit.
Secondly, making a 'projection' for global population trends when breeding habits vary so much across different counties and cultures is just riddled with potential errors. For example even if most people are breeding at below the replacement rate, it only takes a few to be breeding way above it (and to be culturally passing their breeding habits on to most of their offspring) for the whole downward trend to start to reverse itself.