You have to look at overall population, not regional changes. Certain third world countries/continents are having a population explosion.
Those areas are experiencing growth because they now have the resources to support the growth. Many of those countries are also smaller than Texas, USA.
This sounds somewhat like anthropomorphic climate change denier brigade. The consensus is that
global population will increase to
10Billion by about 2050
A "Slow Population Growth" is the same as a decline. Even the UN's global population data shows a decline.
Not that efficient if weāll reach 10 Billion in 26 years. Think about what youāre suggesting here, population limitation by disease, war, lack of water/food and climatic change. Shouldnāt we worry about that?
Worrying about climate change, water/food and climatic change is different from dealing with it. I'm not saying don't worry about it. I'm a person who strongly believes in balance. That 10 billion in 26 years is an estimate. Alot can happen within that time. COVID is still in play, War is still in play as well as drought. Lots of opportunities to change.
Iām gobsmacked by your post, JowGaWolf!
I'm just a realist. There's a lot of stuff out there that can and often does kill people. Even when we try to reduce those risks, there are still many things that can and will trim the human population. People have been trying to live forever and live long and the same truth is that we die. No matter how we try to stop things like cancer and disease, we will still be at risk of dying from a new disease or a new cancer, or new war. The idea that we are concerned about the extinction of animals and plants should give some insight into how fragile population growth is. To assume that humans can't be on that same list would be a big mistake. There's no need to manage population from a macro perspective. There's more than enough stuff trimming the population as it is.
There will be more resources for those peopleā¦less suffering. Perhaps you could expand on this?
More resources don't mean less suffering. They U.S. has more resources than most and we still suffer. We don't have war in the country, but we still have a high murder rate. We have enough resources in the US to end starvation in the U.S. but starvation still exists. We still have crime and grabs for land resources.
Humans are part of nature, just beacuse we are on the top of the chain doesn't mean we somehow are not part of nature. So whatever we or other decides to do, is part of nature. But such insight in itself should I think not be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for that our actions today influence the future.
This is where the confusion lies in what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take responsibility. I'm all for that. My job is to solve problems without causing additional problems and when I accidentally do that, I own up to it and I try to correct it.
I also include Humans as nature. No other animal on this planet does a better job in killing and people. But the idea of trying to reduce population for the sake of population is a big mistake. I would only support an idea like that if we fully understood the working pieces and how things fit into the bigger picture. People still throw away extra pieces from China has already tried population control with their "Only one child" policy. The result was worse than it would have been had they left things alone. Then Covid came along and reduced their population even more. Everything that they are doing now is to fix the issue that was caused by the one child policy.
Studies say otherwise
"Even though China still has the largest population in the world, a report last month by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a leading government think tank, said officials were seriously overestimating the fertility rate.
Instead of suppressing it, the report said the government should try to lift it. More and more people in China, largely in urban areas, prefer to have fewer children."
Instead of suppressing it, the report said the government should try to lift it. More and more people in China, largely in urban areas, prefer to have fewer children."
2010 Source:
Thirty years after the introduction of China's one-child policy, the government is being urged to rethink its population controls.
www.bbc.com
Negative effects of the One child Policy:
Chinaās one-child policy, which was introduced in 1979 to control population growth, had several negative consequences 123:
- Gender imbalance: The policy led to a gender imbalance, with many families preferring male children over female children. This resulted in a rise in abortions of female fetuses, increases in the number of female children who were placed in orphanages or were abandoned, and even infanticide of baby girls 12.
- Elderly care: The policy led to a growing proportion of elderly people, the result of the concurrent drop in children born and rise in longevity since 1980. That became a concern, as the great majority of senior citizens in China relied on their children for support after they retired, and there were fewer children to support them 12.
- Undocumented children: Instances in which the births of subsequent children after the first went unreported or were hidden from authorities. Those children, most of whom were undocumented, faced hardships in obtaining education and employment 12.
- Social impact: The one-child policy is associated with significant problems, such as an unbalanced sex ratio, increased crime, and individual dissatisfaction toward the government 4.
Just like a see-saw. From one end to the other.
"With data from the 2020 census highlighting the looming
demographic and economic crisis fueled by low birth rates, an aging
population, and a shrinking workforce, in May 2021 the Chinese government announced that all married couples would be allowed to have as many as three children; this was formally passed into law in August 2021. Noteworthy with this change was the accompanying promise from the government that it would also be enacting supportive policy changes in areas such as employment, finance, childcare, and education to address the social and economic reasons why couples had thus far hesitated to have more children."
Source:
China's one-child policy revisited: Its history and lingering impact
"In 2016, the one-child policy was replaced by one that allows couples to have two children. Yet the further relaxation of the family planning policy did not bring the baby boom as some expected."
Notably, fertility rates in China were already falling prior to the introduction of the one-child policy, as they often fall alongside economic development and urbanization. And aside from a brief one-year increase following the allowance of a second child, fertility rates have continued to fall in China.
The YuWa Population Research Institute, a Beijing-based think tank, has concluded that China is among the most expensive places to raise a child and that these economic concerns ā rather than governmental policies ā are tied to women not wanting to have more children these days.
Source: 2022:
Key facts about Chinaās declining population
Alot of that point to the failure of the Policy. I would have had more kids had I been able to afford more. But like that last quote points to. Kids are expensive.
www.glurecruit.co.uk
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
