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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: see clearly now who wrote (27074)	8/23/2006 7:25:39 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541342

There was also "a lot of information" about the population implosion from famine that was supposed to happen in the 70s or at latest the 80s, caused by famine. Read up on Paul Ehrlich and his predictions esp. The world population may well start declining, but expecting an implosion by 2035 is very unrealistic absent a major catastrophe (asteroid hit, super volcano, nuclear war, massive worldwide pandemic, whatever). Even imagining a later implosion (note a decline is not an implosion, an imposition is a massive and sudden decline), would require some pessimistic assumptions. And if such an implosion is created by people having less kids than at least you won't have to worry as much about "sustainability" as we will probably use fewer resources. Your link talks about a decrease of 85 million between 2040 and 2050 that isn't an implosion. Eventually if the low end estimate for fertility continues for generation after generation it might be considered an implosion, but it also might not be sudden enough for that term. Either way the population would be decaying away, but that scenario requires the lowest assumptions for fertility, and requires them to be maintained over generations. Negative world population growth is possible. Implosion is far less likely. You could get local implosions for some countries or regions. Russia comes to mind. if there was no oil there your leaders would not have invaded... 1 - "If there was no oil there your leaders would not have invaded." doesn't equal "we invaded to get oil". 2 - If there was no oil in Iraq, but Iraq somehow had the same potential to be a danger the invasion would have happened.