is population growth a good thing?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by realpolitic
There were 13,000 more dead in France this year supposedly because of the heat, and fires were raging in Europe.

Are you trying to cheer Slowwhand up, or something?

[Az]

could be so, and could be not. It's a REAL complex issue.

[VetLegion]

If growth of population exceeds the growth of economy everyone gets poorer. Still, population growth is a good thing, but in some parts of the world, they seem to be overdoing it.

[Ramo]

A low birth rate is a good thing, and a high population growth rate is a good thing (i.e. from immigration). The problem with a high birth rate is that parents have less resources to distribute to their kids, hence more people are malnurished, badly educated, etc. Growth from immigration is a good thing because new markets are created, new capital, both human and material, is brought in, etc., while not contributing to the aforementioned problems with a high birth rate.

[Japher]

Low birthrates can suck without immigration (i.e. Italy), high immigration can also suck (i.e. California)... I say we need to find that happy medium...

[Ramo]

What's wrong with immigration in California? That's what's been fueling so much of the economic growth.

[Japher]

That's what's been fueling so much of the economic growth.

And eating a lot of it up. Immigration requires a lot of resources in order to assimilate the new members, but in California many have chosen not to assimilate and instead have chosen to make the government cator to them.

[Ramo]

What do you mean by assimilation? Learning English? You're insane if you think ESL classes, Spanish forms, etc. eat up a significant portion of the economic growth created by immigration.

[Az]

I think that this hardly suffices to be called assimilation.

[Ben Kenobi]

so do your part for the team.

Again, it's a question of how you use the people. Look at the population density of Singapore and compare with Haiti. Haiti has a much lower population density, yet is much poorer economically. If a high population density always makes people poorer, then how do you explain this phenomenon?

I would argue exactly the opposite is true, in the areas more densely populated, you can afford to do a great deal more specialisation than in a low density of population. Given an economic system that allows the greater number of people to find work with their specialisation, then you can do better with greater population.

with a high birth rate is that parents have less resources to distribute to their kids, hence more people are malnurished, badly educated,

At first, this is true, but what about after 10 years when the children produce more than they eat? Yes, population growth can be difficult to accomodate, but the increase in productive people provides the means to accomodate the growth.

A fellow named Simon Gray rebutted the Rev. Malthus by arguing that population growth and food supply are not independent variables. Since food supply has a static demand, farmers generally restrict themselves to growing the same amount of food each year. With a growing population, more fields will come under cultivation simply because the demand has increased, often rendering more marginal lands competitive.

Therefore, increasing the population, often results in an increase in the food supply.

[Chemical Ollie]

The controversial Swedish philosopher Gunnar Adler-Karlsson, banned and exiled to Capri for his anti-PC statements, said in a lecture I attended that the globe could easily support 50 billion people if we just learned to co-operate instead of making war and spent some money on irrigation, agriculture research and bio-science. I hope he is right and that we will actually see science and politics heading that way during my lifetime (which is about 50% through, according to statistics).

[Japher]

Well, if the EU would just allow GM foods we'd be fine

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Japher
Low birthrates can suck without immigration (i.e. Italy), high immigration can also suck (i.e. California)... I say we need to find that happy medium...

Part of the problem with Italy is that Italians are too educated in general to want the **** jobs that Albanians get hired to do. The Japanese have this problem too, but have been much better at automation of industry - thereby raising productivity.

But again, look at most of the developing world where there are more people than work. This is definitely not good for the economy.

Note also that the more people there are, and the more space they take up, the bigger a footprint they leave. Thus the more planetary capacity is reduced due to enviro degradation. Now combine this with a high school level of biology. When a species becomes too successful in terms of population growth famine, disease (and the resultant infighting for resources like food) inevitably bring population levels down to more optimal levels.

Thank you very much, but I'd rather take a small hit in the economy (if this would even happen) now, than have wholesale pestilence - which would probably hurt the economy more (except for Big Pharma).

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Japher
Well, if the EU would just allow GM foods we'd be fine

Or if religious fanatics would curtail their attempts to breed themselves into the majority we could live on normal foods.

[The Andy-Man]

the more population the more einsteins and van gogh's, the more bachs and mozarts

there are 6billion people alive today, they have still come no where near the intellectual hights of 5thBC Athens, which had about 40,000 i think.