Forum menu
ninfan - MemberEven if its sterile?
Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the hard science
Ernie_lynch, the UN report predicts the population to continue to rise, tending to stabilise around 9 bn (as fertility falls to around 2) but not falling at any point. Falling birth rates do not automatically imply a falling population - they need to fall below 2 for that to happen.
China's one child policy has led to sex-selective abortions, millions of 'surplus' single men and an increasing proportion of the elderly, never mind coming in for criticism on human rights grounds. Ok, it has contributed to reducing population growth to some extent, but at quite a cost. Can you imagine enacting such a policy in the West?
Falling birth rates do not automatically imply a falling population - they need to fall below 2 for that to happen.
Afaik it's about 2.3% , as there's attrition i.e. a proportion of the kids born to a woman will die before child-bearing age, be sterile or choose not to have kids.
China's one child policy has led to sex-selective abortions, millions of 'surplus' single men
Afaik both those things are down to a desire for boy kids which I don't *think* we have in this country. But that's a digression for this thread.
crispycross - MemberCan you imagine enacting such a policy in the West?
No need currently- in the EU and US we're actually below the replacement rate now. Most effective way to reduce population generally seems to be to increase wealth, health, and reduce premature mortality.
(replacement rate varies from country to country due to mortality figures, but I just did some guilty wiki-ing and apparently the world replacement rate is 2.33 and the current fertility rate is 2.36 so actually getting pretty close to stable. Population growth figures lag, obviously.)
I'm sorry crispycross but I don't quite understand the point you're making. Someone asked : At the current rate of global population growth, how long will it be before it's impossible to feed the world without resorting to some sort of genetic modification?
I responded with : Presumably "at the current rate of global population growth" it will eventually be impossible to feed the world even if we resort to some sort of genetic modification ?
GM is obviously not any sort of long term answer (to that particular question). Not maintaining "the current rate of global population growth" is.
Ok, it has contributed to reducing population growth to some extent, but at quite a cost.
I'm sorry I thought you were suggesting that it hadn't succeeded.
Not maintaining "the current rate of global population growth" is.
I think we're in agreement here. The current rate of population growth is not likely to be maintained. It seems it'll likely level out, without the need, hopefully, for more widespread draconian measures enacted by authoritarian regimes, or mass starvation or the like.
Going back to the other part of the point, I'm undecided about the role of GM crops. Used wisely, GM can play an important role in feeding a growing world population, alongside other agricultural improvements, better storage and distribution etc. We also need more equitable distribution of wealth and fairer exploitation of natural resources. I'm afraid that might be very hard to achieve, harder than technological fixes.
The current rate of population growth is not likely to be maintained.
Well that's good news ! 🙂
Ernie_lynch, the UN report predicts the population to continue to rise, tending to stabilise around 9 bn (as fertility falls to around 2) but not falling at any point. Falling birth rates do not automatically imply a falling population - they need to fall below 2 for that to happen
NASA have the population declining from 2050 - some of the lower range NASA projections have humanity becoming extinct due to crashing birth rates.
Improving the standard of living and access to healthcare/education in the developing world would see to it that we hit a lower peak population quicker and would thus enter population decline more quickly.
If we coupled this with legislation that encouraged the demand of energy and carbon efficient technology, then we would be half way to sorting out our mess without ever having to resort to misanthropic unworkable malthusian policies that attempt to rapidly decrease the worlds population.