If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather...

[bilby]

That's what I meant. Either we control the birth rate or nature will eventually do it for us.

We did it.

Apparently a LOT of people have missed the memo.

 

[arkirk]

That's what I meant. Either we control the birth rate or nature will eventually do it for us.

We did it.

Apparently a LOT of people have missed the memo.

Japan is faced with a "declining population problem" according to some of their politicians, when in fact the problem is being geared to an economic theory that demands constant growth in order to function. Their population is aging and there are less and less young to support those in their declining years according to politicians. Societies with a growth dependent economy will all hit the wall. The same organizing principles that apply to expanding populations, when being applied to declining populations do not work. It really is not a matter of there not being enough for all. It is a matter of there being less excess for capitalists to steal and squander.

Japan is tied to the U.S. apron strings and is afraid to strike out on its own in support of its own people. It is lying to its people about the seriousness of Fukushima. It has to be allied to the U.S, Even the nuclear disaster is tied to U.S. apron strings with all their plants being of U.S. design origin. As we keep doing what we are doing here in America, our own special brick wall awaits us...and our capitalists are acting like Nero's Guests. As the late George Carlin said, "They own every fucking thing." As I say...when it is all bought up and there is nothing more free, the capitalists become cannibalistic. That is the stage we have reached and it ain't going away soon!

 

[DBT]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

 

[bilby]

That's what I meant. Either we control the birth rate or nature will eventually do it for us.

We did it.

Apparently a LOT of people have missed the memo.

Japan is faced with a "declining population problem" according to some of their politicians, when in fact the problem is being geared to an economic theory that demands constant growth in order to function. Their population is aging and there are less and less young to support those in their declining years according to politicians. Societies with a growth dependent economy will all hit the wall. The same organizing principles that apply to expanding populations, when being applied to declining populations do not work. It really is not a matter of there not being enough for all. It is a matter of there being less excess for capitalists to steal and squander.

Japan is tied to the U.S. apron strings and is afraid to strike out on its own in support of its own people. It is lying to its people about the seriousness of Fukushima. It has to be allied to the U.S, Even the nuclear disaster is tied to U.S. apron strings with all their plants being of U.S. design origin. As we keep doing what we are doing here in America, our own special brick wall awaits us...and our capitalists are acting like Nero's Guests. As the late George Carlin said, "They own every fucking thing." As I say...when it is all bought up and there is nothing more free, the capitalists become cannibalistic. That is the stage we have reached and it ain't going away soon!

You are right about one thing - the Japanese government dare not tell the truth about Fukushima - which is that it has caused no significant risks, and their panicked evacuation caused more harm than good.

The rest, I want to see some citations for before taking your word for any of it.

 

[bilby]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

So you are saying that despite the best efforts of governments in Europe, they can't generate a population explosion even if they want to?

I am glad you agree that overpopulation is a non-issue.

 

[Bullmoose Too]

If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather see it decrease by a reduction in life expectancy, or by a reduction in birth rate (assuming each had the same end result in terms of number of people alive in, say, 2050)? Another way of looking at it is would you rather have more people get to experience life, each for a shorter average time, or have fewer get to experience life but for a longer time each? And what are your reasons for your preference?

Even if you don't think the earth is over-populated, you can still answer the question of which you would prefer to happen and why, even if your ideal is for neither to happen.

The reduction in birth rate is all ready happening. In the previous forum somebody posted an article that states that the Australian government is bribing women to get pregnant. Japan and most of Europe have birth rates that can not replace their populations. I have read that in about thirty to fifty years the human population will enter into a free fall.

 

[angelo]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

So you are saying that despite the best efforts of governments in Europe, they can't generate a population explosion even if they want to?

I am glad you agree that overpopulation is a non-issue.

You keep harping on about population explosion is a non issue. That may be so in the Western world, but where it counts in the developing world it bloody well is an issue!

 

[angelo]

If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather see it decrease by a reduction in life expectancy, or by a reduction in birth rate (assuming each had the same end result in terms of number of people alive in, say, 2050)? Another way of looking at it is would you rather have more people get to experience life, each for a shorter average time, or have fewer get to experience life but for a longer time each? And what are your reasons for your preference?

Even if you don't think the earth is over-populated, you can still answer the question of which you would prefer to happen and why, even if your ideal is for neither to happen.

The reduction in birth rate is all ready happening. In the previous forum somebody posted an article that states that the Australian government is bribing women to get pregnant. Japan and most of Europe have birth rates that can not replace their populations. I have read that in about thirty to fifty years the human population will enter into a free fall.

Again. Yes it may well do so in the First world, but not in Islamic and developing countries where they are breeding unchecked at accelerating levels. It may mean that at these levels the world will one day revert back to a 15th century islamic state.

 

[DBT]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

So you are saying that despite the best efforts of governments in Europe, they can't generate a population explosion even if they want to?

I am glad you agree that overpopulation is a non-issue.

I'm saying that our system, government and business, does not appear to tolerate stagnation. A state of ''stagnation'' is interpreted when population figures stabilize or fall, along with consumer and tax payer base.

I personally see the world as being overpopulated. It passed my personal tolerance limit decades ago. Not that we haven't the means to provide, but personal space, congestion, amenity.

I know that overcrowding is not necessarily a sign of overpopulation, but as population grows, so do our towns and cities. Where once was bush is now farmland, where once was farmland is now suburbs, MacDonalds, crowded shoppings centres, freeways, congested roads and footpaths.

Yes, this can decentralized, but this is spreading more of the same to areas that are now relatively pristine, that have a little space, a bit of breathing room, that have a relatively natural environment.

I think that we need to consider the natural world more and stop spreading ever outwards.

 

[angelo]

And space. You forgot to mention space. How many more cars can that freeway safely take. When do we say enough, when the whole USA is just one mass of humanity like in Manhattan ?

 

[James Brown]

When do we say enough, when the whole USA is just one mass of humanity like in Manhattan ?

That's going to be a while...

The population density of Manhattan is 27,345 people per square kilometer.

The entire land mass of the United States is 3,537,619--that's with all the surface water subtracted out.

The required population to populate the land mass of the United States at Manhattan-level densities: 96,736,191,555. That's pushing 97 billion people just in the US.

As another way of looking at the problem, if we took today's population of the entire Earth and forced them to live in Manhattan-style density, the whole group would occupy 261,839 square kilometers. That's all 7.16 billion people alive today living in an area the size of Nevada.

I think we've got some space to spare.

 

[bilby]

And space. You forgot to mention space. How many more cars can that freeway safely take. When do we say enough, when the whole USA is just one mass of humanity like in Manhattan ?

Do you dispute the UN figures cited earlier? If so, on what grounds? If not, then why are you asking about a fantasy situation that will never arise? World population is projected to peak at about 10 billion, which isn't enough to make Texas 'one mass of humanity like Manhattan', much less the whole USA. Not even if every single person on Earth decided to move to Texas.

 

[bilby]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

So you are saying that despite the best efforts of governments in Europe, they can't generate a population explosion even if they want to?

I am glad you agree that overpopulation is a non-issue.

I'm saying that our system, government and business, does not appear to tolerate stagnation. A state of ''stagnation'' is interpreted when population figures stabilize or fall, along with consumer and tax payer base.

I personally see the world as being overpopulated. It passed my personal tolerance limit decades ago. Not that we haven't the means to provide, but personal space, congestion, amenity.

I know that overcrowding is not necessarily a sign of overpopulation, but as population grows, so do our towns and cities. Where once was bush is now farmland, where once was farmland is now suburbs, MacDonalds, crowded shoppings centres, freeways, congested roads and footpaths.

Yes, this can decentralized, but this is spreading more of the same to areas that are now relatively pristine, that have a little space, a bit of breathing room, that have a relatively natural environment.

I think that we need to consider the natural world more and stop spreading ever outwards.

There are still plenty of places with thousands of square km without a single person. If overcrowding is an issue for you, you can avoid it just as easily with 10 billion people on the planet as you could with 10 million; you can't possibly detect the difference between being a thousand miles from the nearest inhabited place, and being ten thousand miles from it. Either way, you would only see another person very, very infrequently, unless you chose to do otherwise.

If Cairns gets too big, you can move to any of a huge number of smaller places; just head West - there is more empty space there than you could ever explore. There are lots of places that can only be reached by helicopter, or after many weeks on foot, and that have never even been seen by anybody except a handful of Aborigines; places not a single person has been in the last century are plentiful, as long as you don't expect there to be any roads or tracks to help you get to them.

Crowding is an artefact of people choosing to live close to other people, for mutual benefit. There are few jobs in the bush; but it would be perfectly possible to live out there as a hermit, if you didn't want the benefits of civilisation. If you want the benefits of living in a town, then you have to tolerate the fact that lots of other people will be there too; that has nothing to do with overpopulation though.

I like the idea of living far away from crowds of strangers myself; I don't do so, because I like the amenities of urban life even more. But even with 10 billion people on the planet, the option would still be there to avoid all of them. The populations of the small towns in western Queensland has been falling for over a century, as people choose to concentrate themselves in a small number of larger centres. They can do this because communications have improved; miners can FIFO rather than living near the mines; cattle can be mustered by helicopter, quad-bike or 4WD rather than on horseback. Urban growth in your part of the world is largely the result of extra-urban population decline; the people are moving from places like Childers, Almaden, Forsayth etc. to Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns.

Far from 'spreading ever outwards', the population of Australia is continuing the trend of a century and a half, and concentrating in fewer, larger cities and towns. Brisbane is spreading outwards, but that spread is fuelled by the contraction and abandonment of thousands of stations, tiny settlements, and small townships. Population density in the cities is rising, but in the bush they are falling, despite overall increases in the population of the state as a whole.

 

[DBT]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

So you are saying that despite the best efforts of governments in Europe, they can't generate a population explosion even if they want to?

I am glad you agree that overpopulation is a non-issue.

I'm saying that our system, government and business, does not appear to tolerate stagnation. A state of ''stagnation'' is interpreted when population figures stabilize or fall, along with consumer and tax payer base.

I personally see the world as being overpopulated. It passed my personal tolerance limit decades ago. Not that we haven't the means to provide, but personal space, congestion, amenity.

I know that overcrowding is not necessarily a sign of overpopulation, but as population grows, so do our towns and cities. Where once was bush is now farmland, where once was farmland is now suburbs, MacDonalds, crowded shoppings centres, freeways, congested roads and footpaths.

Yes, this can decentralized, but this is spreading more of the same to areas that are now relatively pristine, that have a little space, a bit of breathing room, that have a relatively natural environment.

I think that we need to consider the natural world more and stop spreading ever outwards.

There are still plenty of places with thousands of square km without a single person. If overcrowding is an issue for you, you can avoid it just as easily with 10 billion people on the planet as you could with 10 million; you can't possibly detect the difference between being a thousand miles from the nearest inhabited place, and being ten thousand miles from it. Either way, you would only see another person very, very infrequently, unless you chose to do otherwise.

If Cairns gets too big, you can move to any of a huge number of smaller places; just head West - there is more empty space there than you could ever explore. There are lots of places that can only be reached by helicopter, or after many weeks on foot, and that have never even been seen by anybody except a handful of Aborigines; places not a single person has been in the last century are plentiful, as long as you don't expect there to be any roads or tracks to help you get to them.

Crowding is an artefact of people choosing to live close to other people, for mutual benefit. There are few jobs in the bush; but it would be perfectly possible to live out there as a hermit, if you didn't want the benefits of civilisation. If you want the benefits of living in a town, then you have to tolerate the fact that lots of other people will be there too; that has nothing to do with overpopulation though.

I like the idea of living far away from crowds of strangers myself; I don't do so, because I like the amenities of urban life even more. But even with 10 billion people on the planet, the option would still be there to avoid all of them. The populations of the small towns in western Queensland has been falling for over a century, as people choose to concentrate themselves in a small number of larger centres. They can do this because communications have improved; miners can FIFO rather than living near the mines; cattle can be mustered by helicopter, quad-bike or 4WD rather than on horseback. Urban growth in your part of the world is largely the result of extra-urban population decline; the people are moving from places like Childers, Almaden, Forsayth etc. to Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns.

Far from 'spreading ever outwards', the population of Australia is continuing the trend of a century and a half, and concentrating in fewer, larger cities and towns. Brisbane is spreading outwards, but that spread is fuelled by the contraction and abandonment of thousands of stations, tiny settlements, and small townships. Population density in the cities is rising, but in the bush they are falling, despite overall increases in the population of the state as a whole.

The point I tried to make was that we like to live in places where the living is good. That is where we ted to congregate.

Sure there are thousands of square kilometers of land with very few people. But the reason for this, both in Australia and other countries, is generally the issue of water availability, hence an arid climate that does not support a large population of omnivorous mammals - humans. Then there's the issue of employment and business opportunities, which are few and far between in small bush towns.

So population is necessarily concentrated around the coast strip and inland river systems. By 'spreading out' I meant cities are building suburbs on what was once farmland or bush. Huge tracts of urban development in the most productive of natural environments.

Nor is it just about me or my personal taste for uncrowded living conditions in ideal locations, but what is happening to the natural ecosystems in these areas.

 

[bilby]

Neither government or business likes declining population numbers, or a declining tax payer base:

''In France and the Scandinavian countries, which have some of the highest fertility rates in Europe, parents get lots of government help. A French maman has at least 16 weeks of mandatory, paid maternity leave, as well as guaranteed job security and—if she has a third child—a monthly stipend of up to 1,000 euros for a year. In Norway, women are entitled to 10 months at their full salary or a year at 80 percent. Because these policies have been in place for decades, the countries' fertility rates are approaching 2.1, roughly the point where a population can sustain itself without immigration. Other nations are emulating this approach: Spain now offers a 2,500 euro bonus for every baby born. South Korea, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, shells out $3,000 per couple for in-vitro fertilization. And in Germany, where women have an average of 1.3 babies, Angela Merkel proposed up to 1,800 euros a month for stay-at-home parents, and more day-care centers to improve the public image of working moms—who have long been dubbed Rabenmütter, or "raven mothers." (Countries plan these financial incentives carefully to avoid drawing in too many poor parents—and creating a bigger lower class.)''

So you are saying that despite the best efforts of governments in Europe, they can't generate a population explosion even if they want to?

I am glad you agree that overpopulation is a non-issue.

I'm saying that our system, government and business, does not appear to tolerate stagnation. A state of ''stagnation'' is interpreted when population figures stabilize or fall, along with consumer and tax payer base.

I personally see the world as being overpopulated. It passed my personal tolerance limit decades ago. Not that we haven't the means to provide, but personal space, congestion, amenity.

I know that overcrowding is not necessarily a sign of overpopulation, but as population grows, so do our towns and cities. Where once was bush is now farmland, where once was farmland is now suburbs, MacDonalds, crowded shoppings centres, freeways, congested roads and footpaths.

Yes, this can decentralized, but this is spreading more of the same to areas that are now relatively pristine, that have a little space, a bit of breathing room, that have a relatively natural environment.

I think that we need to consider the natural world more and stop spreading ever outwards.

There are still plenty of places with thousands of square km without a single person. If overcrowding is an issue for you, you can avoid it just as easily with 10 billion people on the planet as you could with 10 million; you can't possibly detect the difference between being a thousand miles from the nearest inhabited place, and being ten thousand miles from it. Either way, you would only see another person very, very infrequently, unless you chose to do otherwise.

If Cairns gets too big, you can move to any of a huge number of smaller places; just head West - there is more empty space there than you could ever explore. There are lots of places that can only be reached by helicopter, or after many weeks on foot, and that have never even been seen by anybody except a handful of Aborigines; places not a single person has been in the last century are plentiful, as long as you don't expect there to be any roads or tracks to help you get to them.

Crowding is an artefact of people choosing to live close to other people, for mutual benefit. There are few jobs in the bush; but it would be perfectly possible to live out there as a hermit, if you didn't want the benefits of civilisation. If you want the benefits of living in a town, then you have to tolerate the fact that lots of other people will be there too; that has nothing to do with overpopulation though.

I like the idea of living far away from crowds of strangers myself; I don't do so, because I like the amenities of urban life even more. But even with 10 billion people on the planet, the option would still be there to avoid all of them. The populations of the small towns in western Queensland has been falling for over a century, as people choose to concentrate themselves in a small number of larger centres. They can do this because communications have improved; miners can FIFO rather than living near the mines; cattle can be mustered by helicopter, quad-bike or 4WD rather than on horseback. Urban growth in your part of the world is largely the result of extra-urban population decline; the people are moving from places like Childers, Almaden, Forsayth etc. to Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns.

Far from 'spreading ever outwards', the population of Australia is continuing the trend of a century and a half, and concentrating in fewer, larger cities and towns. Brisbane is spreading outwards, but that spread is fuelled by the contraction and abandonment of thousands of stations, tiny settlements, and small townships. Population density in the cities is rising, but in the bush they are falling, despite overall increases in the population of the state as a whole.

The point I tried to make was that we like to live in places where the living is good. That is where we ted to congregate.

Sure there are thousands of square kilometers of land with very few people. But the reason for this, both in Australia and other countries, is generally the issue of water availability, hence an arid climate that does not support a large population of omnivorous mammals - humans. Then there's the issue of employment and business opportunities, which are few and far between in small bush towns.

So population is necessarily concentrated around the coast strip and inland river systems. By 'spreading out' I meant cities are building suburbs on what was once farmland or bush. Huge tracts of urban development in the most productive of natural environments.

Nor is it just about me or my personal taste for uncrowded living conditions in ideal locations, but what is happening to the natural ecosystems in these areas.

You can't have it both ways though; and it is nothing to do with "overpopulation". People like to live where the jobs are; and in wealthy nations, this means cities. When mining and agriculture are the mainstays of the economy, the population can get away with being more rural. I suspect that once infrastructure allows effective tele-working, many people will spread out again. I could happily live in an outback town with a dozen houses and a pub - but only if it has a reliable, high bandwidth, low latency internet connection, that is available at a reasonable price.

I agree that concentration in cities is not desirable (at least for many of us, including me); I don't agree that the total world population is a significant driver of the degree to which people like us are forced to tolerate it. There are many factors; the sheer numbers of humans alive is not one of them.

 

[angelo]

Many of those outback towns also have a much harsher environment as well. Gawd, we have a town in our North West that sometimes reaches the incredible temperature of close to 50C in the middle of summer. I wouldn't think to many people would happily choose to live in Marble Bar.

 

[Jokodo]

If you think the earth is over-populated, would you rather see it decrease by a reduction in life expectancy, or by a reduction in birth rate (assuming each had the same end result in terms of number of people alive in, say, 2050)? Another way of looking at it is would you rather have more people get to experience life, each for a shorter average time, or have fewer get to experience life but for a longer time each? And what are your reasons for your preference?

Even if you don't think the earth is over-populated, you can still answer the question of which you would prefer to happen and why, even if your ideal is for neither to happen.

The reduction in birth rate is all ready happening. In the previous forum somebody posted an article that states that the Australian government is bribing women to get pregnant. Japan and most of Europe have birth rates that can not replace their populations. I have read that in about thirty to fifty years the human population will enter into a free fall.

Again. Yes it may well do so in the First world, but not in Islamic and developing countries where they are breeding unchecked at accelerating levels. It may mean that at these levels the world will one day revert back to a 15th century islamic state.

This is simply false. Total fertility rates (defined as "the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and bear children in accordance with current age-specific fertility rates") are actually decreasing in a large majority of developing countries (Musim or otherwise) too. In Afghanistan, for example, the total fertility rate has fallen from 5.9 to 5.1 between 2009 and 2012 alone, down from 7.8 in the mid-90s. In Burundi, the decrease was more moderate 6.4 to 6.1 from 2009-2012), but that's still down from 7.4 in the mid-90s.

World bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

Instead of individual countries, we can look at the combined figure for the Least Developed Countries according to UN classification, or at the Middle East and North Africa region, to check whether those countries defy the trend and actually, on aggregate, people in "Islamic and developing countries" are breeding at unckecked and accelerating levels. They are not: The TFR for the least developed countries ("4th World") has gone from 4.8 to 4.2 between 2004 and 2012, for the Middle East and North Africa georegion, it has gone from 2.9 to 2.7 in the same period.

World bank again: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/countries/1W-XL-ZQ?display=graph

 

[angelo]

Until the world as a whole reaches a 1-1.5 birth - death rate those figures are meaningless.

 

[Jokodo]

Until the world as a whole reaches a 1-1.5 birth - death rate those figures are meaningless.

No shifting goal posts, please. You made a factually incorrect claim: That people in "Islamic and developing countries" are breeding at "accelerating levels". Are you going to retract that claim, or would you rather contest that the World Bank data have been fiddled with?

 

[angelo]

An increase of 5 or 6 % has been reduced a fraction and its no longer an increase? 6 % is now 5% and it is reason to celebrate?