One End Of Spectrum There's China; and At The Other, Australia

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
The worlds population is expected to top out at ~9,000,000,000 in 2050, with global birthrates dropping to mere replacement levels of 2.02 children per woman.

9 billion people far exceeds the carrying capacity of the earth.

Originally posted by JohnT
do so before you come here and make complete, monsterous asses of yourselves.

What would that be, John? Do you prefer a lot of poor kids born having terrible lives, even more evironmental degradation, that sort of thing?

[JohnT]

Given that the moral choice you are presenting me with is:

1. Children being born in poverty.

or.

2. Rooting for their deaths.

Yeah, I guess I would prefer them to be born in poverty.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT

The worlds population is expected to top out at ~9,000,000,000 in 2050, with global birthrates dropping to mere replacement levels of 2.02 children per woman. By 2050, global population growth will decline from todays 1.35%/year to 0.33%/year.

So, the stastics that our population rate with curve and level out are dependant on people heeding my advice and practicing population control. Perhaps not to the level that I think is best - but certainly not what australia is encouraging.

I think it's naive to believe that people will just stop having children as more people are born, however... what is the decline attributed to? (anything other than wishful thinking?) Hell, the fact that people are saying "hey, look... the growth rates leveling off... it's not going to hurt if we promote large families for a bit" is evidence to that.

[JohnT]

If you want insight into the UN's methodology for population projections I, again, implore you to go to the UN Population Division's website.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by JohnT
Given that the moral choice you are presenting me with is:

1. Children being born in poverty.

or.

2. Rooting for their deaths.

Yeah, I guess I would prefer them to be born in poverty.

Strawman.

[JohnT]

No, given the "thread" of this thread so far, it's the choice you presented me with. Read the above for further clarification, UR.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
If you want insight into the UN's methodology for population projections I, again, implore you to go to the UN Population Division's website.

Just going to shrug off my argument, then? Ppretend that you didn't just cite something that is based on an assumption of declining growth rates to argue for increased growth rates?


But I'm not going to sift through pages and pages of overblown stastistics to find their methodology. You seem to have alot of faith in their projections though, so surely you can give me a summary?

[JohnT]

If by saying "you can find out for yourself" is "blowing off your questions", then I don't know how to help you. You're the one with the questions, you find out. I gave you the link: use it!

Being informed is a lot better than blowing smoke out of your ass (as you have been doing this entire thread).

[East Street Trader]

I follow your point about when a new born baby enters the workforce as compared to an immigrant, Horse. But there ius still something inconsistent about controlling immigration vigorously and encouraging more children.

As for the striking test tube illustration, if you measure the growth of a baby elephant for a year or two and then draw a graph to project his expansion you can readily convince yourself that it won't be long before the world and everything in it has been absorbed into his ever growing bulk.

Malthus proposition, I think, was that nature stepped in to cucb population growth by way of disease and war and such like.

In fact it seems that increased prosperity brings birth control in its wake and has the effect of cutting population without the need for anything further. And people around the world have been getting steadily more prosperous for some time.

Two of my grandparents came from falilies of more than ten children. I know of none anywhere near that size in the subsequent generations and it is becoming rare in the UK to find a family with as many as four children. One or two is the norm.

India and China both are both becoming steadiy more prosperous. As population growth slows there world demographics will start to look very different.

[General Ludd]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by JohnT

Being informed is a lot better than blowing smoke out of your ass (as you have been doing this entire thread).

I'm not the one who's having difficulty backing up my arguments.

It's your cite, if you can't give me a summary, you probably never should of cited it.


Either way, I'm not particularily interested in 50 year projections (let alone the 300 year projections they have), since there is such a huge margin of error. It's just something for their statistic jokeys to do to keep from being bored.

[JohnT]

So...

You know nothing about the subject, but are content to spew misinformation?

You know you know nothing about the subject, but are content to doubt those (The UN) who do?

You are pointed towards the some of the worlds leading experts on population growth and statistical methodology relating to said pop. growth, information that is free and open to all, yet you want me to explain their numbers?

Get real, Ludd. I'm not here to do your "homework." The only thing that matters to me is the fact that you desire to remain ignorant on the matter, which now allows me to drastically discount the value of everything you have to say about this (and many other relating) subjects.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I'm not the one who's having difficulty backing up my arguments.

Dude, I backed up my arguments with a cite to the worlds leading institute on population growth. Don't even try to play this game with me, child.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
yet you want me to explain their numbers?

Well, you are the one using it to argue for increased growth rates.

I really only wanted you to explain their numbers because I knew that the reasons behind the population curve could only be through birth control, or massive deaths. Which is what I'm arguing.

I enjoy having people make my arguments for me, what can I say.

I follow your point about when a new born baby enters the workforce as compared to an immigrant, Horse. But there ius still something inconsistent about controlling immigration vigorously and encouraging more children.

As for the striking test tube illustration, if you measure the growth of a baby elephant for a year or two and then draw a graph to project his expansion you can readily convince yourself that it won't be long before the world and everything in it has been absorbed into his ever growing bulk.

Malthus proposition, I think, was that nature stepped in to cucb population growth by way of disease and war and such like.

In fact it seems that increased prosperity brings birth control in its wake and has the effect of cutting population without the need for anything further. And people around the world have been getting steadily more prosperous for some time.

Two of my grandparents came from falilies of more than ten children. I know of none anywhere near that size in the subsequent generations and it is becoming rare in the UK to find a family with as many as four children. One or two is the norm.

India and China both are both becoming steadiy more prosperous. As population growth slows there world demographics will start to look very different.

But can the world sustain even 6 billion prosperous people? Let alone 9 billion, or 12 billion, or whatever it's going to 'cap out' at.

But regardless.. if australia's reaction of "hey, we should be having more babies!" to the slow-down in growth rates is indicative, it might not matter.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT


Dude, I backed up my arguments with a cite to the worlds leading institute on population growth. Don't even try to play this game with me, child.

Yes, a cite that that was based on the assumption that what I am arguing for will be the case.

And you should drop the arrogance, gramps. It makes you look bad.

[Sprayber]

Perhaps some people here should take one for the team and do their part in decreasing the world's population