|
everygdusernametaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Sure. Industrialization does decrease the birth rate, and if the carrying capacity of the planet was about 15 or 20 billion we could afford to wait for the nations of the earth to modernize with a subsequent peak and then decline in the population, but the carrying capacity is not that high. We will soon overtake it by any estimate (I personally believe we are well over it now), and the only method by which the human population can reach equilibrium is that which I've already mentioned.
SianChristina (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
surely when other countries develop (I know it could be hundreds of years for Africa) then the birth rate will decrease and population will go down too?
SianChristina (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well looking at most countrys and the DTM, during industrialisation the birth rate tends to decrease naturally anyway, i think people should have a choose over the amount of children they have, it's their bodies and their children, personally i'd like to have about 2 children, but thats because we live in a developed country where it's too expensive to have any more.
everygdusernametaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
2ndly, I also believe China committed atrocities while attempting to conform to this policy, but we must not this as evidence against the policy ITSELF.This is completely wrong. Look up "genetic fallacy."Since when has the US, or any industrialized western nation, looked to the oppressive, despotic governments of China's past (and to a lesser extent, present) as a guiding example of how to do ANYTHING.They suck. Ask a young Chinese university student studying HISTORY who Tank Man was.
everygdusernametaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not going to attack you for it.First of all, we are not a population of rabbits, or deer. As the most intelligent species on the planet, we have means of controlling our population OTHER than starvation. We can CHOSE to limit our growth and prevent the suffering and death it will ultimately cause.
SianChristina (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
sorry that sounds really cold hearted, and i'd never wish anyone to starve, of course, just stating a point...
SianChristina (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hmm, i will admit that the beginning idea was good, 'families that have one child will be praised whereas families with to our more children will be discouraged' but it just went horribly wrong and they couldn't predict what was going to happen...
SianChristina (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes i knew that, but you could argue that the starvation IS controlling the population, if you look at Malthus theory it states that there must be a ceiling for population growth, and they're MUST be a ceiling, because if population grows then food runs out, people die, population falls. I can't be bothered to cover the holes in that arguement, plus it will let you argue back :).
everygdusernametaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I believe in pop reduction. As a nascent scientist, one who has examined the evidence for and against, I am convinced it is the only way we can survive the next few 100 yrs without countless millions starving to death (thousands do every day NOW, did you know that?).Yes, these are atrocities, but are we to resign ourselves to the aforementioned fate because China failed to address the complexities of its policy?Let us not forget--historically, China's gov. has been criminally inept, anyway.
everygdusernametaken (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No, it isn't a "much better way to save the planet" Okay, let's say you're right. All electricity now comes from solar and wind. All trans fuel comes from biomass. The pop continues to grow.Where does the food come from? Do you have ANY IDEA how much arable land it would take to produce the equivalent of JUST the US consumption of GASOLINE? Did you know we're reaching our max agricultural output RIGHT NOW? Do you know what the ubiquitous dissolved salt in irrigation water does to cropland? |
