World Population Growth

[jeffnc]

I have a basic theory that is probably not popular, and is also easily misunderstood, so I rarely discuss it. In a nutshell, I think the world population (of humans) is too high and population growth should be stopped.

I view the world as having evolved more or less according to Darwin (I do not have traditional biblical creationist beliefs.) For almost all of history, life on Earth has evolved in a "natural" way. By that I mean according to the "laws" of evolution that presided up until [censored] sapiens came along.

Then at some point during the growth of [censored] sapiens population, things reached some "critical mass", and the intelligence of our species threw everything out of balance. Things that were true before were no longer true now.

We arrived at the state we are in now, where technology and the combined skills and knowledge of the world's civilizations have created a situation in which evolution no longer operates "correctly" (as it did). The weak often survive to pass their genes on. More food is produced than naturally would have been available on earth, so that huge populations can be sustained. The vast majority of the world's population live off the intelligence and production of others (to wit, "stupid" and unhealthy people can easily survive and reproduce). Medicine has advanced to the point where "traditional" evolution no longer works right.

In a sense, we are "devolving", yet our population continues to grow.

The unpopularity of some of these points is immediately apparent - one might jump to the conclusion that I'm implying medicine is bad. Can you imagine - not trying to cure cancer in our loved ones? Not trying to take every effort for our frail newborn to survive? I cannot imagine those things either, and would not want to.

However, things cannot continue forever. The growth cannot be sustained on this planet, and I imagine everyone agrees with that (except maybe for some right wing fundamentalist types). There are millions of people living in hunger and suffering and poverty, and yet our population continues to grow. I think we have the obligation as the most highly evolved and intelligent species ever to inhabit the planet, to control our situation and our destiny.

For example, trying to feed the hungry is a worthy short term goal, but at what cost? So that they will all survive to seed an exponentially growing population of even more hungry, poor and suffering people? Personally, I think the better longer term solution might be to put some of those resources into things like teaching birth control and making it available and educating cultures that it's the right thing to do. This might seem like a cold approach, but I think it's more compassionate in the long term.

Our population growth will stop, it's just a question of how it happens and how much suffering occurs along the way.

Of course there are other obvious issues, such as China's approach to birth control.

Comments or disagreements?

[Rococo]

I'm no expert on genetics, but I'm pretty sure that there is no scientific basis for your comments on evolution. Evolution does not work to cause all creatures to develop in the direction of greater intelligence, nor does it ensure that the sick or "dumb" portions of a given population eventually dwindle away.

Educating people about birth control is fine with me, and may be a better use of resources than certain types of hunger relief. That being said, there is more than enough wealth in the world to accomplish both goals.

Lastly, you seem to take as an article of faith that having lots of kids is economically irrational if you are indigent. In certain areas of the world, particularly in subsistence farming communities, that may not be correct. Only a truly oppressive government can force people not to have kids when it is in their economic interest to do so strikes

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not work to cause all creatures to develop in the direction of greater intelligence, nor does it ensure that the sick or "dumb" portions of a given population eventually dwindle away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean that exactly. I meant
- in the case of humans, we did evolve to be more intelligent (it is not necessarily the case with evolution in general)
- since high intelligence is a fairly rare trait considering all the species on the planet, I don't think there's much precedent for how it works vis a vis evolution, but certainly we're at a point where it's not much of an evolutionary advantage for humans because the intelligence of so few can affect the survivability of so many others (other than themselves). Intelligence has very little to do with whether or not you can reproduce.

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, there is more than enough wealth in the world to accomplish both goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I claim that this can't be true for very much longer given current population growth.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, you seem to take as an article of faith that having lots of kids is economically irrational if you are indigent. In certain areas of the world, particularly in subsistence farming communities, that may not be correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wherever it's not correct, then I agree it's.... uh, not correct [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[JanelleBB7]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a basic theory that is probably not popular, and is also easily misunderstood, so I rarely discuss it. In a nutshell, I think the world population (of humans) is too high and population growth should be stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading HERE! Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

PS: Are you in my SPEECH Class I swear to god I know you! And not in a good way!

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a basic theory that is probably not popular, and is also easily misunderstood, so I rarely discuss it. In a nutshell, I think the world population (of humans) is too high and population growth should be stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading HERE! Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[/ QUOTE ]

What a surprise.

[ QUOTE ]
PS: Are you in my SPEECH Class I swear to god I know you! And not in a good way!

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no I'm not in your speech class and you don't know me.

[AZK]

nature has a way of correcting itself long term... HIV, pandemic flu (H5N1), newer, trickier, more resistant bugs... I'm not worried, it will win in the end.

[Scary_Tiger]

Humans are obviously gonna get wiped out eventually. Chill out.

[Maulik]

If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels. This has already occured in parts of Europe (France is the key example).

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this idea more please?

[Jim14Qc]

[ QUOTE ]
If economic booms continue in industrialising counries we can expect world population growth to eventually fall below replacement levels. This has already occured in parts of Europe (France is the key example).

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't France have one of the highest birth rates among western European countries? Your point's still valid though, immigration is what keeps population rising in the western world.

Regarding OP's idea that there is too much population for resources, there's an economist named Thomas Malthus who predicted that early in the 20th century and that's been proven wrong consistently. Over the past ~15k years, agricultural technology has always been able to rise to meet demand for food. Famines experienced in the 20th century were not due to world lack of food, but to unequal distribution. There is nowhere near a lack of food today on a worldwide scale, only a lack in certain extremely poor areas that is not due to worldwide scarcity. It can also be assumed that agricultural progresses (think GMO's among others) will be able to keep up with further population growths.

Evolution isn't limited to bodily capacities. Obviously humans have an extremely developed mind (compared to other species) and medicine is a product of that mental evolution. Medicine doesn't stop evolution, it's a product of the process.

Overall I don't think your theory is much different from Malthus', you might want to read on its refutations (I'm sure there are many online).