B
buffalo
Guest
It’s absolutely relevant. Summarily dismissing the economic impact of abortion is a problem.
- Status
N
Nate13
Guest
The Irish population has been on the rise since 1971 and has increased from 3 million to around 4.5 million. I would bet much of that population decrease before that point was due to emigration as well, which would not have the same impact as just having less kids. Oh yeah don’t forget the potato famine
S
StAnastasia
Guest
How do you propose to sustain this on a planet that is not itself expanding?
T
TimothyH
Guest
How can you say that this huge problem, as you see it, is not being addressed? We are addressing this in a radically agressive way.
We are contracepting ourselves and exporting contraception to the world as fast as container ships can carry the stuff overseas.
We are aborting people as fast as we can. Abortion has been legalized in Mexico City. The entire nation of Spain recently too.
Whataya talking about, not addressing the problem? What more can we do? I shudder to think about what one might propose we do next!!!
-Tim-
B
buffalo
Guest
There are many more resources on this planet than we know. Don’t discount the resourcefulness of man.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
That’s ridiculous (bolding mine) most of those abortions were for women that were financially or emotionally incapable of caring for a child, most likely they would have been a burden to the system. Please post the study you got that figure from.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
How do you propose to sustain 3% population growth indefinitely on a planet that is not itself expanding?
K
kama3
Guest
And, having no place to grow food, would start eating each other, achieving population reduction. Eventually, the population would drop to the level which could be fed using the arable area of the Isle of Man.
…Congratulations, you have figured out where the problem actually is.
K
kama3
Guest
The issue is that the world economic system has been built on credit. Since each credit has to be paid back with interest, it requires infinite economic growth, or it will collapse. To top that off, retirement systems have been built on the assumption that each generation is more numerous than the previous, so it can pay the pensions of the previous generation. This is where the 3% growth idea comes from.
That very system has already hit the resource limits – i.e. peak oil – and is beginnig to collapse.
K
kama3
Guest
The problem is not what the resource limit is, but that it exists at all. Unlimited exponential growth will hit this limit sooner or later.
Or, we go for off-planet resources, but that doesn’t seem to be a popular idea
.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
Good attempt at a diversion.The Irish population has been on the rise since 1971 and has increased from 3 million to around 4.5 million. I would bet much of that population decrease before that point was due to emigration as well, which would not have the same impact as just having less kids. Oh yeah don’t forget the potato famine
Fact is, the population decreased, and if the populationists are correct, there should’ve been old people thrown out on the streets. Since the facts prove that this didn’t occur, it’s time to start revising these theories. Facts can be inconvenient when they prove one’s theory wrong.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
I don’t. But I discount pure speculation.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
kama, many people don’t understand concepts such as sustainability and biological carrying capacity. Evidently you do. Every species reaches equilibrium with its environment, if not voluntarily then by means of nature’s constraints. Nature bats last and owns the ballpark.
N
Nate13
Guest
Why don’t you go tell the Irish that the potato famine was no big deal. I’m sure the Irish War for Independence in 1921 really helped spur population growth and made Ireland a fun place to be at. Don’t forget the constant fighting between Protestants and Catholics. Ireland is your best example? I don’t even know all the claims “populationists” make but if Ireland is your proof that they are wrong, you leave much to be desired.Good attempt at a diversion.
Fact is, the population decreased, and if the populationists are correct, there should’ve been old people thrown out on the streets. Since the facts prove that this didn’t occur, it’s time to start revising these theories. Facts can be inconvenient when they prove one’s theory wrong.
N
Nate13
Guest
Haha social welfare was based on a lot more than 3% growth. It was based on a time when we had a fertility rate of 3.8 here in the U.S. This is purely just poor management and its kicking us in the butt now because the taxes taken out to support these programs were not adjusted as population growth declined. The social programs could be trimmed down to sustainable levels, but then of course we are still left with all the debt they incurred up to this point.
An economic system based on credit does not necessitate infinite economic growth unless you allow yourself to get into unmanageable debt as we have. You only need an infinitely growing economy if you don’t ever want to feel the affects of borrowing money. I think most people realize that borrowing money now means I have to tighten my belt later. Its when people don’t realize that borrowing money has consequences that you get yourself into trouble. For too long people ignored the debt based on the idea that our economy would grow faster than we were incurring debt, and thus eventually overshadow the debt. This was incredibly shortsighted obviously.
If America did not have any debt right now we would be fine with 0% economic growth or even slightly negative economic growth if we stopped all immigration into the country. Our fertility rate is below replacement level and if there were a few less jobs next year if wouldn’t matter. The 3% economic growth rate is based on the nominal rate of inflation. If our currency stopped inflating this would become unnecessary.
Everyone just needs to follow one rule with regards to population growth: Only have as many children as you are capable of supporting, period. And so as not to prevent cutting off your hand only to go and cut off your whole arm, don’t use contraceptives and abortion to achieve this. Rather by use of NFP, ecological breastfeeding, and abstinence this should be achieved. Even if we get sent back to the medieval ages these three methods will be just as effective. I would hope no one resolves to use the contraceptives of the medieval ages and starts consuming arsenic
N
Nate13
Guest
C
cho_pilo
Guest
People are unemployed and it’s getting worse, it’s not a matter of “resources”. It’s not a matter of space.
W
Warrior1979
Guest
So what is your point? If population declines due to the decrease in average number of children, all of the Apocalyptic theories apply; but if population declines due to death/emigration, none of these Apocalyptic theories apply?
I have to admit, it a theory I haven’t seen before.
J
Jonatello
Guest
well, it’s more specifically a matter of intelligent humanity-friendly management of space.
sprawl, car-oriented development patterns, and the allowing of the few to own and control the vast majority of useful space are just some of the major reasons why we feel like there’s no room for everyone.
when in fact, there is PLENTY of space.
the entire US population could fit in NH at a Brooklyn-based density.
the entire GLOBAL population could fit in Texas at the same density level.
I’m not suggesting we take one state and fill it to the brim with brooklyn, but it does show there is way more than enough space.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
For what?
More than enough for now? Every species has a biological carrying capacity: there is a finite number of polar bears, sharks, ants, raccoons, and humans that the earth can support. Sooner or later every species reaches zero population growth.
- Status