1 edit
-Removed-The problem is not too many people, but a grossly inequitable distribution of available resources. We have the productive capacity to feed many more people than there currently are in the world, but millions are allowed to go hungry or starve because they cannot be adequately fed at a profit. As long as the productive resources of the world are allowed to be held as private property you will have hunger and starvation regardless of the total population. As long as you maintain capitalism and the profit motive, you could cut the current world population by 90% and there would still be rampant hunger and starvation.
Originally posted by FMFUnder control? The world population continues to grow at an alarming rate. Eventually it will become a problem. We will eventually outstrip our ability to feed everyone. But that day is not yet here. At present the problem is one of an inequitable distribution of resources.
Is this 'population time bomb' thing really the consensus anymore? I rather thought that population was pretty much under control and the worries of 30 years ago are no longer valid.
2 edits
From another recent thread:
Originally posted by FMF
There was some interesting stuff about this in The Economist recently.
Fertility and living standards - Go forth and multiply a lot less
Oct 29th 2009 - From The Economist print edition - Lower fertility is changing the world for the better
SOMETIME in the next few years (if it hasn’t happened already) the world will reach a milestone: half of humanity will be having only enough children to replace itself. That is, the fertility rate of half the world will be 2.1 or below. This is the “replacement level of fertility”, the magic number that causes a country’s population to slow down and eventually to stabilise. According to the United Nations population division, 2.9 billion people out of a total of 6.5 billion were living in countries at or below this point in 2000-05. The number will rise to 3.4 billion out of 7 billion in the early 2010s and to over 50% in the middle of the next decade. The countries include not only Russia and Japan but Brazil, Indonesia, China and even south India.
The move to replacement-level fertility is one of the most dramatic social changes in history. It manifested itself in the violent demonstrations by students against their clerical rulers in Iran this year. It almost certainly contributed to the rising numbers of middle-class voters who backed the incumbent governments of Indonesia and India. It shows up in rural Malaysia in richer, emptier villages surrounded by mechanised farms. And everywhere, it is changing traditional family life by enabling women to work and children to be educated. At a time when Malthusian alarms are ringing because of environmental pressures, falling fertility may even provide a measure of reassurance about global population trends.
[...]
That points to another big reason why fertility is falling: the spread of female education. Go back to the countries where fertility has fallen fastest and you will find remarkable literacy programmes. As early as 1962, for example, 80% of young women in Mauritius could read and write. In Iran in 1976, only 10% of rural women aged 20 to 24 were literate. Now that share is 91%, and Iran not only has one of the best-educated populations in the Middle East but the one in which men and women have the most equal educational chances. Iranian girls aged 15-19 have roughly the same number of years of schooling as boys do. Educated women are more likely to go out to work, more likely to demand contraception and less likely to want large families.
Lastly, a special case: China’s one-child policy, which began nationwide in the early 1970s. China’s population is probably 300m-400m lower now than it would have been without it. The policy (which is one of population control, not birth control) has had dreadful costs, including widespread female infanticide, a lopsided sex ratio and horrors such as mass sterilisation and forced abortions. But in its own terms, it has worked—20m people enter the workforce each year, instead of 40m—and, to the extent that China is polluting less than it would have done, it has benefited the rest of the world.
Whole article here: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589 ...well worth reading.
If non-subscribers are unable to access the article, here it is: http://tinyurl.com/yh4nekj
Originally posted by rwingettI agree with you. That's why I took exception to AThousandYoung's assertions, a year or so ago, that - and this is my paraphrase, intended in good faith - "Poverty is biological, regardless of political system". Total rot in my book, and somewhat intellectually disgraceful. There are enough resources in the world and more than enough food, and yet food security is one of the most pressing, existential threats to literally billions of people. Current political and commercial arrangements are clearly unable to address the issue. Indeed, it doesn't even remotely seem to be the aim of current arrangements. To reach for the "biological answer" rather than address the more politically difficult shortcomings of economic systems, to me, is bordering either on the clinically naive or incorrigibly despicable.
At present the problem is one of an inequitable distribution of resources.
Originally posted by rwingettThe growth of the world population is dropping and the world population is expected to stabilize at around 9-10 billion, while our ability to produce food is rapidly increasing as efficient farming methods and more stable governments are spreading throughout the developing world.
Under control? The world population continues to grow at an alarming rate. Eventually it will become a problem. We will eventually outstrip our ability to feed everyone. But that day is not yet here. At present the problem is one of an inequitable distribution of resources.