The Global Fertility Crash

[Common Sense]

See the OP: "by 2100, according to the United Nations, that’ll likely be the high point." Much of there world is already there.

The only link I can find in the OP is to Says law of markets.

Regardless, the global population is currently not declining. It may not be growing at previous rates, but it's far from declining. Not to mention, the growth is compound growth. The growth rate is half of what it was in the 60's, but in 1960 the population was only around 3 billion and now it's approaching 8 billion.

As to the OP, I didn't see any links talking about infertility rates. Lower birth rates aren't necessarily tied to infertility.

[nathanbforrest45]

As a further aside, WTF is "Mother Earth News" ?

The Earth as a whole is indeed overpopulated .. the US = Not so much.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...ic-stagnation/

Some people are apparently just ignorant.

https://www.motherearthnews.com/stor...waAtm3EALw_wcB

Furthermore, the world is not overpopulated. There are more people in some areas that cannot be supported under the current economic conditions but if capitalism were to prevail worldwide much of that would be eradicated in short order. I am speaking of true capitalism, not government controlled "capitalism" that supports some to the detriment of others.

[Chris]

The only link I can find in the OP is to Says law of markets.

Regardless, the global population is currently not declining. It may not be growing at previous rates, but it's far from declining. Not to mention, the growth is compound growth. The growth rate is half of what it was in the 60's, but in 1960 the population was only around 3 billion and now it's approaching 8 billion.

As to the OP, I didn't see any links talking about infertility rates. Lower birth rates aren't necessarily tied to infertility.

Here: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...rtility-crash/

I forgot to put that in the OP. It took me two seconds to find it.

Read it.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Statistically, that's false, worldwide, population is in decline. If you'd bothered to read to OP instead posting dumb stuff...

The population density of this planet is far too low. For the vast wasted territories to have normal distributions, all that is needed is advancements in technology. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, it would have 700 million people. Zero-Growth academic gurus have been successful in suffocating the will of creative geniuses.

[Chris]

The population density of this planet is far too low. For the vast wasted territories to have normal distributions, all that is needed is advancements in technology. For example, if Alaska had the population density of New Jersey, it would have 700 million people. Zero-Growth academic gurus have been successful in suffocating the will of creative geniuses.

Empty half the Earth of its humans says the opposite:

...The tendency of people to move to cities, either out of desire or perceived necessity, creates a great opportunity. If we managed urbanisation properly, we could nearly remove ourselves from a considerable percentage of the the planet’s surface. That would be good for many of the threatened species we share this planet with, which in turn would be good for us, because we are completely enmeshed in Earth’s web of life.

Here I’m referring to the plan EO Wilson has named Half Earth. His book of the same title is provocative in all the best ways, and I think it has been under-discussed because the central idea seems so extreme. But since people are leaving the land anyway and streaming into cities, the Half Earth concept can help us to orient that process, and dodge the sixth great mass extinction event that we are now starting, and which will hammer humans too.

The idea is right there in the name: leave about half the Earth’s surface mostly free of humans, so wild plants and animals can live there unimpeded as they did for so long before humans arrived. Same with the oceans, by the way; about a third of our food comes from the sea, so the seas have to be healthy too....

Not saying I agree. Not sure that's what E.O. Wilson intended.

[The Xl]

Generally, though, I think it's the case that the poor have more children than the rich.

True, but I think the current climate doesn't really work for the working and middle class.

[Collateral Damage]

Well, according to the Georgia Guidestones, we could survive with two fertil women (humor, for those who need to be told)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

[Common Sense]

Well, according to the Georgia Guidestones, we could survive with two fertil women (humor, for those who need to be told)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

According to the bible, it only takes one woman and one man to populate a planet.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Empty half the Earth of its humans says the opposite:



Not saying I agree. Not sure that's what E.O. Wilson intended.

We are not trapped in the web of Nature. It is our evolutionary duty to entirely transform or replace it. Nothing in nature is where it belongs unless man put it there.

Wilson is following a primitive and Death Wish passive superstition. Zero-Growth academic gurus are bitter vindictive misfits and must be jettisoned if we are to move forward.