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

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dauphin
And those that do are often not living the life that they want.

What about in vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by General Ludd
Damage to the environment, pollution.

I repeat my question, what damage?

Imaginary damage, of course. You know, the kind that creates imaginary lung diseases and imaginary water contamination, and imaginary habitat loss, ect.. ect..

There's PLENTY. Distribution is the problem.

Like I said, we're just amzingly efficent like that.


Anyways the question should not be how we can get the first world to keep up with the third in terms of population growth, but how we can get the third world to the same level of the first world. And if it's even possible. Once we have done that, then we can start thinking about a 'maximum population'. And if we can't do that, then obviously we have to focus on reducing the population untill it is at a sustainable level.

[chequita guevara]

Feeding nine billion people isn't a production problem. It will be, as has been the case for the last few hundred years (at kleast in the West) a distribution problem. If we had to do so, we could decrease our production of meat in order to use the grain for humans.

There will be a potable water shortage, however.

Worse will be increasing living standards for the billions who don't live an American life style. If all of China, let alone India and Africa, were able to consume at the level at which Americans did, we'd pollute ourselves into a new dark ages pretty quickly.

[Az]

Sometimes, I want to destroy the earth's ecosystem just to make Ludd feel bad about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

how we can get the third world to the same level of the first world. And if it's even possible.

Um, of course it is possible. All they have to do is advance economically. Initially there will be a population boom (like in India and China), but as the economies progress, growth rates should plummet. The reason growth rates are so high in the initial progress era is because while birth rates stay high, death rates fall greatly because of medicines. Birth rates drop later, when economic progress has been around for an era or so and is increasing, thereby making women's time more valuable.

In order to get 1st world growth rates, we just have to increase economic progress.

[Az]

Question: what happens if we'll be below replacement rates worldwide? Clearly, THAT is not sustainable.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What about in vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers?

How much does in vitro cost?

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Whoha


are you sterile? Gay people have been known to have been married with children.

Speak no more of your blasphemy.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
Sometimes, I want to destroy the earth's ecosystem just to make Ludd feel bad about it.

You already are.

Um, of course it is possible. All they have to do is advance economically.

I'm not about to get into a debate about resources, especially with you. So I will just provide you with this little quip: When everyone's living like americans, who will be manning the sweatshops that make it all possible?

Question: what happens if we'll be below replacement rates worldwide? Clearly, THAT is not sustainable.

Not if we keep it up, obviously. But the idea is to just maintain it for a while untill the numbers get to a manageble level, and then keep it under control from there.

I thought you would appretiate this argument, by the way. You being an asimov freak and all (atleast, I've always thought of you as one). I couldn't help but think about the spacer / earthman situation portrayed in his robot detective novels. Not a perfect comparison, of course. But there are a lot of similarities.

[Az]

I am not an Asimov freak.

I just often wondered, how will falling birthrates, and aging populations affect the future of human society.

Will we see the return of strict patriarchal societies? And if not, what social model will renew population growth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When everyone's living like americans, who will be manning the sweatshops that make it all possible?

Who says sweatshops will have to make it all possible? The economy can exist perfectly fine without them. It'll just be at a new equilibrium, probably with newer technology keep prices for 'sweatshop goods' relatively low.

[SlowwHand]

I beg to differ.

It's not just manufacturing being done overseas, it's now leeched out into the service industry.
Pinkerton's is now foreign-held.
American's are selling off America, piece by piece.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Azazel
I am not an Asimov freak.

I just often wondered, how will falling birthrates, and aging populations affect the future of human society.

Will we see the return of strict patriarchal societies? And if not, what social model will renew population growth.

Given that a drop in European population (albeit a rapid one) during the 14th century lead to major labour and land reforms in favour of workers and a reduction in the strength of the feudal system, I think we may see an increase in the strength of consumers and workers over big corporations.

[Az]

Slowwhand, you commie. What about capitalism and free enterprise?!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Didn't you know? He's a Commie now .