Chris N Deuchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>There are already too many of us,
>> but the number is currently forecast to go up somewhere between 50%
>> and 100% before peaking.
>
><fx: raises eyebrow>
>Why will it peak?
>When at primary school in the 1950s, the world reached it 2nd billion
>of population (the 1st having been reached early in the 20th C). We
>are now well on the way to seven billion. This is an exponential
>increase which only widespread famine or plague is likely to halt.
It is turning out that as the standard of living of a popularion
rises, the people reduce their fertility. In effect, poor people with
poor health have lots of kids in the hope that enough will survive to
look after the parents in their old age. As people become less poor,
they will have savings to depend on instead of children (that's a
rather grossly simplified and summarised picture, but broadly what is
being observed).
The invention of effective birth control has allowed this to work.
In many wealthier countries (UK, Germany, Japan, etc.), fertility is
now well below replacement level. This is a VERY good thing.
Based on estimates of global economic growth, it is likely that this
effect will result in a reduce of global fertility below replacement
before too long. However, the population will still keep growing for
a while, as a large proportion will still be of child bearing age.
When the average age rises sufficiently, population growth will stop.
However, it appears that won't happen until global population reaches
about 15 billion. That estimate is a bit loose, hence my statement
that the peak will be be between 50% and 100% above what we have
today.
If we are doing major damage with the number of us alive now, think
how much we will do with twice that many.
>
>Avian flue anyone?
Possibly (no joke), or something similar. But wouldn't the following
(i.e. using fewer births rather than more deaths) be better? That has
the potential to reduce the peak population significantly, and allow
population to start declining sooner.
>> No more than one kid per woman globally looks like a really good idea
>> to me. But perhaps a bit more gently than China has pursued it ...
Here's a question.
How many people should there be in the global population ideally?
I would guess very many fewer than are alive today.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
