Has The Population Bomb ... Fizzled ?

[Michael Hardner]

This blogger posts a convincing case that it's been defused.

What is going on? Family-planning experts used to say that women only started having fewer children when they got educated or escaped poverty -- like us. But tell that to the women of Bangladesh.

Recently I met Aisha, Miriam, and Akhi -- three women from three families working in a backstreet sweatshop in the capital Dhaka. Together, they had 22 brothers and sisters. But they told me they planned to have only six children between them. That was the global reproductive revolution summed up in one shack. Bangladesh is one of the world's poorest nations. Its girls are among the least educated in the world, and mostly marry in their mid-teens. Yet they have on average just three children now.

With half the world already at below-replacement birthrates, and with those rates still falling fast, the world's population will probably be shrinking within a generation.

Next time somebody tells you that the world's population is exploding, tell them about Bangladesh and Iran. Now, we should start focusing on the environmental challenges for the first world.

[Topaz]

This blogger posts a convincing case that it's been defused.

Next time somebody tells you that the world's population is exploding, tell them about Bangladesh and Iran. Now, we should start focusing on the environmental challenges for the first world.

IF people don't start cutting back on the population, some scientist will, by a deadly virus. Too many people to fed.

[wyly]

there will still be 9 billion by mid century, far more than the earth's food resources can sustain

if I could remember where I read it I'd link to another article that speculates the planet will be down to 100 million in 100 years due to environmental collapse...

[lictor616]

This blogger posts a convincing case that it's been defused.

Next time somebody tells you that the world's population is exploding, tell them about Bangladesh and Iran. Now, we should start focusing on the environmental challenges for the first world.

this blog is less then worthless... he's there saying that the low birth rate in "western countries" is a welcomed development, and incorrectly states that the entire world is moving the way of childless low birth rate "developped countries"... not so, http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

[Michael Hardner]

IF people don't start cutting back on the population, some scientist will, by a deadly virus. Too many people to fed.

But we're increasing our ability to feed faster than the population is rising. The problem is the impact of feeding and giving material to people.

The whole point of this thread is that the alarms raised in the 60s and 70s don't apply anymore.

[Michael Hardner]

there will still be 9 billion by mid century, far more than the earth's food resources can sustain

if I could remember where I read it I'd link to another article that speculates the planet will be down to 100 million in 100 years due to environmental collapse...

The article explains that we may be at zero pop growth inside of a generation.

[Michael Hardner]

this blog is less then worthless... he's there saying that the low birth rate in "western countries" is a welcomed development, and incorrectly states that the entire world is moving the way of childless low birth rate "developped countries"... not so, http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

Your link doesn't add anything, as expected.

[Michael Hardner]

this blog is less then worthless... he's there saying that the low birth rate in "western countries" is a welcomed development, and incorrectly states that the entire world is moving the way of childless low birth rate "developped countries"... not so, http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

Please explain Bangladesh.

[Oleg Bach]

There is no population bomb - there is just a big oil bomb that allows for mindelss and easy breeding - if we got big oil to back off people everywhere would have less time for f**king and other pleasures and luxury...with more artifical energy - more humans emerge - The population expolosion is not due to more food - or more energy - it was due to artifical energy that created an atmosphere to breed..mindlessly - NOW it fizzles becaue the use of oil has peaked and people feel to ill because of the fumes to f**k.

[lictor616]

Please explain Bangladesh.

explain how teen marriages are the object of government curtailments there? explain how despite huge awareness campaigns, Bangladesh is still projected to be among the nine countries that are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase in the next 3 decades?: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth?

please explain how my link which shows you that we are at +7 billion ALREADY, when 5 years ago we were 6.3 indicates to you that overpopulation is some sort of myth? WE ALREADY ARE AT MAX CAPACITY FOR OPTIMAL LIFE! Half of the current agrarian soils are over-fertilized, and we will face HUGE issues in terms of irrigation and crop yields in the very near future (in fact we already are facing big problems in these areas).

wth?

[lictor616]

But we're increasing our ability to feed faster than the population is rising. The problem is the impact of feeding and giving material to people.

The whole point of this thread is that the alarms raised in the 60s and 70s don't apply anymore.

the alarms raised in the 60's and 70's was that in 2000, we'd be 5.5 to 6 billion in population, and that limited resources would definitely push about half of that population in grueling poverty.

And what happened? well in 2000 3 billion people lived without running water, and with under a dollar a day, and of course the world population was about 6.1 billion.... so they UNDERSHOT slightly their predictions... and you say they were overshot them... Of course all of this is worse today even... despite unprecedented humanitarian aid and investments to ameliorate this.

These projections were in hindsight, completely accurate.

Edited July 14, 2010 by lictor616

[Moonlight Graham]

But we're increasing our ability to feed faster than the population is rising. The problem is the impact of feeding and giving material to people.

This is correct. The world produces much more food than humanity actually needs right now, yet many people still starve. The problem of starvation is not overpopulation, it is the distribution of available food and those who can and cannot afford it.

The UN Food and Argriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that although there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3600 calories a day, which is 1200 calories more than the UN`s recommended minimum daily intake. Despite this, there are still over 800 million significantly hungry people in the world.

The third world is where the majority of the world`s hungry live and where overpopulation is exploding, yet it is also where most of the world`s food is produced, while those who consume the most live in the Western/developed world.

[GostHacked]

But we're increasing our ability to feed faster than the population is rising. The problem is the impact of feeding and giving material to people.

The whole point of this thread is that the alarms raised in the 60s and 70s don't apply anymore.

I will also say we do not have a food shortage at all, we have a food distribution problem.

[GostHacked]

please explain how my link which shows you that we are at +7 billion ALREADY, when 5 years ago we were 6.3 indicates to you that overpopulation is some sort of myth? WE ALREADY ARE AT MAX CAPACITY FOR OPTIMAL LIFE! Half of the current agrarian soils are over-fertilized, and we will face HUGE issues in terms of irrigation and crop yields in the very near future (in fact we already are facing big problems in these areas).

You could help the problem and take yourself out of the equation. I mean, it won't be enough but it might be a start.

[Moonlight Graham]

The article explains that we may be at zero pop growth inside of a generation.

Are you kidding me? Your article won't load for me for some reason. But are you saying because of Bangladesh and Iran, this is proof that the global pop won't continue to grow?

From the book i'm looking at right now (printed in 2008 by Oxford University Press, using stats from the UN), it says that the data says the global population has quintupled since the early 1800's, and is expected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 10 billion in 2050. It also says over 50 percent of this increase is expected to occur in only 7 countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan.

Hey, maybe the situation in Bangladesh has changed. But does that mean its changed in the other countries?

You ask to explain Bangladesh? Well since i cant access the article, what is its explanation for the pop growth change given in the article? It also seems weird to me the pop situation would change that drastically there in only a handful of years.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

The Earth can support many times its current population; technology allows us to greatly increase the carrying capacity of our environment. A population that stops growing (or even worse, declines) is a sign of stagnation and societal collapse.

[Jack Weber]

The Earth can support many times its current population; technology allows us to greatly increase the carrying capacity of our environment. A population that stops growing (or even worse, declines) is a sign of stagnation and societal collapse.

I agree...The problem is not with food production or total population.The problem is with(as already stated) food distribution AND population density in certain regions of the world.

[lictor616]

I will also say we do not have a food shortage at all, we have a food distribution problem.

distributing that food will be real easy and free I suppose right? sure! distributing food to billions of additional people won't in the slightest affect our energy demands...

and pollution? over-fertilization? meh who cares right... the goal for you people is QUANTITY not quality...

are you counting on some sort of technological miracle? beaming devices? meals that can be shrunk in pill form?

its frightening to see what "humanitarian enthusiasts" are ready to risk just so that we can add 4 billion anatomically human vocal anthropoid...

[lictor616]

You could help the problem and take yourself out of the equation. I mean, it won't be enough but it might be a start.

The real solution would be to take liberal internationalists out of the equation, who I think have wrought quite enough damage in the past 50 years... Because liberals never learn, and always try to put out fires with gasoline... They are the problem, they are the ones who have created the appalling overpopulation and squalor in the third world...

we should go to the source of the problem not try to alleviate the symptoms: the IMF, internationalist left wing NGOs like the UN, liberal "intellectuals", socialists etc.

[GostHacked]

distributing that food will be real easy and free I suppose right?

Not sure where you are getting that from. It's definitely not free. But when you have stacked and stocked grocery shelves in most modern industrialized and prosperous nations, more food than we can eat, it does come down to a distribution problem. That is taking into account that countries that are poor lack the infrastructure for proper distribution.

sure! distributing food to billions of additional people won't in the slightest affect our energy demands...

It demands a shift in our mentality when it comes to food. We have an abundance of products that are just not good for us, and we seem to find that in more quantity than food that is good for us. We could not waste our energy on producing food that is unhealthy, which can and already does put an economic strain on us because we are spending money to cure ourselves.

and pollution? over-fertilization? meh who cares right... the goal for you people is QUANTITY not quality...

Oh I agree, quality over quantity is better. Our waste lines show that quantity is key.

are you counting on some sort of technological miracle? beaming devices? meals that can be shrunk in pill form?

I did not miss you when you took a vacation from MLW. We already have the technological marvels, I work in that industry myself. Have been for most of my working life.

its frightening to see what "humanitarian enthusiasts" are ready to risk just so that we can add 4 billion anatomically human vocal anthropoid...

I have no idea what you are ranting about on this last part. Maybe you can clarify.

[Jack Weber]

Not sure where you are getting that from. It's definitely not free. But when you have stacked and stocked grocery shelves in most modern industrialized and prosperous nations, more food than we can eat, it does come down to a distribution problem. That is taking into account that countries that are poor lack the infrastructure for proper distribution.

It demands a shift in our mentality when it comes to food. We have an abundance of products that are just not good for us, and we seem to find that in more quantity than food that is good for us. We could not waste our energy on producing food that is unhealthy, which can and already does put an economic strain on us because we are spending money to cure ourselves.

Oh I agree, quality over quantity is better. Our waste lines show that quantity is key.

I did not miss you when you took a vacation from MLW. We already have the technological marvels, I work in that industry myself. Have been for most of my working life.

I have no idea what you are ranting about on this last part. Maybe you can clarify.

Hint....

Rememeber what he got banned for a month ago...

Think "pocked faced baboons and howling 3rd world masses"....

[Michael Hardner]

Hey, maybe the situation in Bangladesh has changed. But does that mean its changed in the other countries?

You ask to explain Bangladesh? Well since i cant access the article, what is its explanation for the pop growth change given in the article? It also seems weird to me the pop situation would change that drastically there in only a handful of years.

Bangladesh is significant because it's a 3rd world country with lower birthrate. The first world and second world have reduced their population growth rates.

[Jack Weber]

Bangladesh is significant because it's a 3rd world country with lower birthrate. The first world and second world have reduced their population growth rates.

Think about this for a second,because that might ease ol' Licky's mind..

Less of the howling 3rd world masses being born=less of the inferiors immigrating to the homelands of the superiors...

[Michael Hardner]

Think about this for a second,because that might ease ol' Licky's mind..

Less of the howling 3rd world masses being born=less of the inferiors immigrating to the homelands of the superiors...

I can't help that a good idea somehow makes a bad man happy.

[Jack Weber]

I can't help that a good idea somehow makes a bad man happy.

Something tells me that a lower birthrate in some places in the 3rd world simply is'nt good enough for him...

Forced depopulation is probably more to his liking...

Gotta keep those howling 3rd world masses from breaching the walls!!!!