Population Control

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,330
Not much point in expanding further when you couldn't be bothered to read the links already posted. You should probably look up the meaning of "exponential" too because the population is not expanding exponentially. The social problems we will face will be due to an aging and shrinking population, not due to an expanding population.
Not expanding exponentially? Seriously, it comes pretty close to that. Our numbers have more than tripled in the last hundred years and whilst some people measure a declining growth rate, that is a function of not just random reproduction but the environment that makes reproduction viable. Remember that as we alleviate the worlds problems the opportunities to produce children increase, the survival of infants increases, and more and more people are surviving into an increasingly fecund older age which medical science is supporting. Okay, some guy has made a study telling us all will be well. So what? In any potential problem there are those who tell us the problem isn't going to happen. Some predict the problem reaching crisis, most just raise their eyebrows at the stats and get on with their lives because generally speaking Humanity only really reacts to problems once it cannot be avoided. Like living next to a volcano. We know volcanoes are potentially destructive and lethal. We know that active volcanoes will at some point cause destruction. But people go on living next to them anyway.

Please explain this mysterious malady that affected ancient Egypt.
I wish I could. As far as I understand it Egypt's population had grown to the point where poor harvests or natural disasters made impossible to feed. Given that modern archaeology now has access to satellite data revealing a greatly expanded record of ancient Egyptian population, the message is obvious.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,021
Australia
So you don't own a dictionary. Here you go.

Exponential growth.

"Growth of a system in which the amount being added to the system is proportional to the amount already present: the bigger the system is, the greater the increase."

Here is an exponential graph.



Here is the growth of our population projected through to 2050.



Linear growth, not exponential.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Edratman

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,021
Australia
The statement was that our population was CURRENTLY expanding exponentially. It isn't. It is currently expanding linearly, in the 2050s it will level off, and after that it will decline.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,378
Sydney
of course the growth cannot go on ,
population explosion are always followed by population crashes
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,761
Dispargum
Tradtionally, population growth has always pushed against the maximum food supply. There has always been hunger because people's appetite for sex has always exceded the Earth's capacity to produce food. The only reason the human population is not currently 100 billion is because the Earth could never feed so many people. When population was limited by food supply, aberations like positive climate change, often allowed the food supply to temporarily increase thereby increasing population. However, nature always corrects itself. Aberations returned to normal or negative aberations changed the situation to worse than normal and population fell drastically.

This trend of births exceeding food supply has only changed in the last century or two with the expanded use of birth control. People still like having sex but we're not having as many babies as we used to. As the use of birth control continues to expand the population growth rate will gradually flatten and eventually fall. The trend so far is that if people have access to birth control they usually have fewer babies than are necessary to sustain the population. Western Europe and now the US are in negative population growth. The paradigm has shifted (gosh I hate that phrase). We are moving toward a condition where population is no longer limited by food supply but is instead limited by birth control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
Does Population control in a country really needed for economic growth?


To theist forumers here, will you not subscribe to other preachers' teachings that to go forth and multiply and God or a god will provide them for their needs the reason population must not be controlled?
People are the most important economic resource. Population is steady or declining in most of the developed world, and that is an economic challenge. So I would say that the reverse of the above thesis is true: populartion control hurts economic growth. “Go forth and multiply” is still a good development strategy.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,378
Sydney
births are only part of the picture
an important factor is the number of offsprings which survive to adulthood

the basic requirement is for having enough surviving children to care for their aging parents
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,757
San Antonio, Tx
Dan, the point is that we shouldn't take future projections as totally true. One famous projection made in the early 1950s was that, given the explosion in the numbers of people using telephones, at the current (then) rate of growth there would, in 10 years, not be enough females (had to be female) to operate all the necessary switchboards. Of course electronics has solved the problem. Did that mean that females would be unable to find any paid work? Hardly, there are more women in work than before.

The whole work and social security balance is going to change. I predict that people retired will be expected to work, as much for their own good as anything else. Only those with specific justification for getting benefit (eg disability) will receive it. But anyway my hope/belief is that technology will advance and that most of our necessities will be provided at very little cost. I think people without paid work should be given it.
I very much like the idea, but I'm afraid that the task of making another country a desirable place would be far more expensive than setting up a border barrier. Think of Mexico, with its deadly drug gang conflicts. I don't think that it within the West's power to solve the problems there and make people accept lower pay there rather than try their hand in USA. And remember that many of the immigrants coming to USA are not Mexicans, but from failed states further south. Or think of Libya, where most of the immigrant boat people heading for Europe embark from. Nobody in Europe seems to want to contemplate setting Libya right, and, again, the immigrants are coming from other failed states further away, which Europeans won't even consider trying to get to.
Well my basic point was that there is no political will in Europe to make the necessary economic and military commitment to set Libya straight, and the whole idea of making it into a colony is right off the political map.

To my mind it is in Europe's interest to set Libya, and indeed the whole of North Africa "straight", there should not be, so close to Europe, so many failed states. But it should not be colonialism in any sense.
Not sure I would designate Morocco, A;geria, and Tunisia as failed states. Libya? Yes, it is, and Egypt is a bit iffy in the governance department but Egypt is the 200-lb gorilla in the room.
 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,419
The "failed states" I was referring to were the ones south of Libya, such as South Sudan. People come from there in the hope of getting into Europe.