Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (6619)	2/26/2001 6:11:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Now surely you don't believe this can be kept up indefinitely, right? Or at least not indefinitely on this planet; if a practical means of interstellar travel is found, then it's almost indefinitely. But earth has limits. If population keeps growing, at some point you hit them. We're probably already there. I doubt there are enough resources to allow our standard of living to all 6 billion humans. Our resources are not fixed. We develop more resources (and more efficient ways to reuse or recycle them) with technological advancement. Our wealth increases as the world moves toward free market solutions and becomes more integrated, and as investments from this increasing wealth bear fruit. Right now we don't have the resources to allow the standard of living enjoyed by the US to all 6 billion humans. But 100 years from not the average standard of living in the world will probably be above the standard now enjoyed by the US, (Even if particular places have a lower standard of living, I'm talking about the average not the minimum.) despite the fact that their will be more people, probably a lot more. And do you realize how fast population is growing? World population has to be estimated; every country doesn't have reliable censuses (censii?). At the beginning of this century world population was estimated at about 1 billion; now it is 6 billion. Six times in 100 years. How long do you think you can keep that up? The population has gone up 6 times in 100 years so you assume it will automatically continue to rise to that level until it hits some limit causing disaster? I don't. Birth rates are declining across most of the world. The general trend is as a country develops birth rates go down. Here are some population projections from the UN undp.org "According to the medium-fertility scenario, which assumes fertility will stabilize at replacement levels of slightly above two children per woman , the world population will grow from 5.7 billion persons in 1995 to 9.4 billion in 2050, 10.4 billion in 2100, and 10.8 billion by 2150, and will stabilize at slightly under 11 billion persons around 2200. Although the high and low fertility scenarios differ by just one child per couple, half a child above and half a child below replacement fertility levels, the size of the world population in 2150 would range from 3.6 billion persons to 27.0 billion." Even the high estimate is not "keeping up" with the 600% growth per 100 years that we have had over the last century. The low estimate has the world having less population in 2150 then it does now. This probably wont happen but it is not completely implausible. All ready several rich countries don't reproduce enough to replace their current population. Countries in the middle like Mexico are experiencing great declines in fertility. With Mexico going from about 7 children per woman to about 3 in the last few decades. You might also take a look at prb.org Which projects a little over 9 billion by 2050. or undp.org Which is a link to UN data that shows the fertility rate is going down in most countries and is not increasing in any countries or regions or areas except the Gaza Strip. For some more on the sustainability of human progress I recommend - www-formal.stanford.edu Tim