> -----Original Message----- > From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:28 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Mention of David Brin > > > And anyway - reducing populations by lowering breeding rates is just > as effective, and as has been shown the world over, as populations > become more affluent and better educated they breed later and less > (often choosing to have none or one child). > > So the answer to the population crisis is development and education, > not culling. >
Isn't the population crisis sorta old hat? According to Wikipedia, the latest numbers (provided from the CIA) has the world fertility rate dropping from 2.8 in 2000 to 2.61 in 2008. For developed countries, the ZPG rate is 2.1, for countries with high mortality rates (e.g. much of sub-Sahara Africa), the ZPG fertility rate can approach 2.5. In fact the UN, IIRC, is forecasting world population to peak around 2050-2060, and then start dropping. This process will not be even. Europe is already near the tipping point, with the EU fertility rate at 1.5. Japan has passed the tipping point, with the death rate exceeding the birth rate by 21%. Russia is in free fall, with the death rate exceeding the birth rate by 50%, and the population falling 0.5%/year. The US is almost perfectly on the ZPG point. It accepts far more immigrants than anyone else, so it will continue to grow. China has a big demographic bulge that has to work its way through the population; but the under 20 set is relatively smaller than older age cohorts because of the 1 child policy (as well as having a strong male bias). India is approaching ZPG and, with present trends, should get there in 5-10 years. But, Mid-Eastern countries, such as Iraq and Iran, still have high fertility rates, and don't have corresponding low lifespans (like Africa) to balance them out). So, we will see a vastly different looking world in 2050, unless there are massive changes in social attitudes. For example, Russia will be mostly old women. Japan will be very old and shrinking fast. Europe will be smaller and fairly old. The US will be browner, but otherwise it's forecast to have similar demographics to today, with the main cause of the aging of the population will be advances in medicine. If one adds to that the fact that the 40+ crowd is not the usual source of trend setting and radical innovation (yes, I know that includes me), one will see a tendency for Europe and Japan to become backwaters, full of pensioners who will be overwhelming the working age population with their need of support. So, in essence, the countries that lead the drop in population will become unimportant on the world stage. As far as solving the environment vs. human poverty conflict problem, it's clear that the best chance we have is for wealthy countries to develop a breakthrough that allows an environmentally friendly, cheap source of energy. Right now, we are in a period where, compared to say 1920-1990, there is a dearth of fundamental breakthroughs. The hottest potential fields are nano-tech and synthetic biology. The latter is virtually red-taped out of existence in Europe, so the main hope for that is in the US. Billions are going into venture capital and IPO projects in this area, and there is potential for a real breakthrough (e.g. algae that produce fuel from CO2 and ocean water without being "hothouse plants"). But, without that, the EU and US can cut CO2 emissions 50% in the next 30 years, and it will only have a modest effect on the rate of increase of CO2 emissions. In short, those countries/regions that continue to be way below ZPG will find that their children and grandchildren will have little say in the future of the world, because they will have little impact. The few of them that will be around will be busy taking care of the old folks (e.g. folks like me :-) ). Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
