>Ah, I see your point. Mass executions are indeed hideous. I was thinking
>about population control from the breeding side. And I have indeed
>attempted to lead by example. I was sterilized at age 20, and have no
>children. Mind you, I do think that either we rein in population size,
>or a lot of people die on other hideous ways. Is it a whole lot better
>to avoid mass executions so that we can have mass starvation, or mass
>plagues, or mass wars?
I'm not sure what rein in means. You know that the world is rapidly
approaching the ZPG fertility rate, right? At the moment, the world
fertility rate is 2.5 (CIA Factbook 2008 estimate). In developed
countries, the replacement rate is 2.1. In underdeveloped countries it can
range from 2.5 to 3.5. For the world at large, it's about 2.33.
Considering the fact that the fertility rate in the 70s was between 4 and
5, we are extremely close to ZPG fertility rates now. I'd expect, unless
there is an overwhelming reversal in trends, that we'll be under ZPG
fertility rates in 5-10 years (we were at 2.8 worldwide in 2000). Does
this count as rein in?
If not, why do you think that the present level of population is
unsustainable? In the US, at least, farms are much more productive and are
farmed in a far more sustainable manner than they were 50-100 years ago.
Indeed, my father-in-law's old farm has been gaining topsoil over the last
decade or so as a result of improvements in soil management.
Dan M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
