SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the On-a-Pale-Horse-vs-Being-a-Green-Mother dept.
The world population is growing because the birth rate exceeds the death rate, so to stabilize the world population either the birth rate needs to drop, or the death rate needs to increase. The most cited reference for population studies is the projections of future population (PDF) made by the Population Division of the United Nations. The UN report projects the world population to eventually stabilize as a result of countries settling in to a birth rate that falls around the replacement level.
A commentary by Stephen Warren in the open access journal Earth's Future takes the UN report to task for focusing on birth rate. He notes that all species generate offspring in numbers well above the replacement level of two, but you don't see historically the kind of population growth like you do with humans. He argues that despite all the negative feedback mechanisms on population (such as war and pestilence), it seems that Malthus (PDF) was correct that food supply is the driving factor, and wonders whether it is even possible to stabilize the world population until food production levels off.
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:09PM
I suspect it's incorrect - in particular the "inequality" part - because inequality is causing *billions* to survive (or die) on only a tiny fraction of what it's comfortable to live on. The mega-rich are not eating a billion times as much as the extremely poor - so you can't equalise food distribution like you can money distribution (where the ultra-rich indeed do have a billion times as much as the extremely poor). Billions of people would need to eat less in order for billions of people to eat more. Therefore you can't easily pull the lowest layers up much easily - simply because they are so numerous.
You also have to remember that the projected populations are arrived at after factoring into the equations things like lots of people dying from malnutrition and famine.
I'm not saying that equality isn't a noble goal, it's just that I don't think it will achieve what you claim it will, namely abundance for all.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:10PM
Food shortages and warfare are irrelevant since there are no eugenics against diseases. Breeding for intellect, physical strength, beauty or sociability just means limiting long term genetic diversity on the expense of a better quality of life in whatever society you're living in that happens to encourage those traits as vestiges of defending against predators that are no longer around.
You could argue targeting health for eugenics, but that's a shifting socio-political term as any. e.g. current life expectancy ratings in 1st world countries only reflect externally uninhibited health (no wars, predators or pandemics) and relies completely on access to food and medicine which are no guarantee in the long run.
Eventually, you'll be faced with the fact that the only thing you can do is breed young and for numbers with multiple partner as genetically distant from you as you can in hopes whatever kills everyone else won't get to your offspring.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:34AM
Louis C.K. is that you ?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:33PM
The problem isn't that there isn't enough food - IIRC current global food production is 4-8x greater than necessary to adequately feed the global population. The problem is that there's no *profitable* way to get that food into the hands of the poorest quarter or so of the world's population.
I.e., we don't have a food problem, we have an economics problem.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:29PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves