Atlantic: What if we never run out of oil?

+1

I never heard that song, cool lyrics - In dead earnest

India and Bangladesh are the two countries with high populations, and population growth. India dropped from 6 to 2.5, bangledesh from 7 to 2.6 average children per couple. These are numbers still have high population growth, but the growth is slowing quickly. South India is now less than 2, so even in india it is regional as you point out.
World population may actually start declining, not exploding. - Slate Magazine

I would think China would have to end its policies, they are doing damage to the country. China has a extremely fast aging population, and fewer workers being born to provide for the retired. It appears though that if the policy is reversed birth rate is unlikely to go above 2. The problem with china, in many eyes is that they are getting more wealthy, and in the short term at least that means more resources, more energy, more pollution.

Education, empowered women, and access to birth control, higher wealth seem like the main mechanisms that enable lower fertility rates.

 

I would add health systems that greatly reduce infant mortality is worth adding to that neat list.

 

That definitely is on my short list of things that are good for humanity.

Unfortunately that is one of those things that our neo-malthusians think is counter productive. More viable babies, breed, and according to them will add to higher population among the lower classes or asians according to which one. Then these lower classes or asians will cause massive starvation, or depletion of resources, or global warming. Pick your leading Neo-Malthusian. Lowering infant mortality and raising life expectancy have been leading drivers to rising population. Still I would rather have us each use less of a huge world, than wish the death of a child on anyone.

India will have more people than china in about a decade, and bangladesh has the highest birth rate, and population density for a populous country. The growth in these two countries are not sustainable, but the growth rates are starting to decrease towards a sustainable future. Ehrlich wanted to leave these countries to starve. Others have worked to improve the quality of life, and agricultural advances are faster than population growth. The world can afford to feed and provide medical care to these large populations.

 

Actually liberals are the biggest proponents of national health plan which lowers infant mortality amont other things and provides sex education, free birth control, free abortions to all women as overpopulation is a huge problem and women bear the brunt of it with child birth and child care. Anyone who doesn't understand the current overpopluation problem is turning a blind eye to the science facts. The planet cannot provide the food or energy or housing for the current world population at a US working class level. Either billions live in abject poverty to the point of starvation, as they do now, or we reduce the population to bring up world's standard of living.

Same with the oil question, we have enough hydrocarbon fuel and the technology to convert it to complete destroy the ecosystem, we are well on are way to doing it, probably have done it since global warming science data points to eco system crash in progress.

The question is not running out of oil/hydrocarbons, the question is to drastically reduce usage (80% by 2050) to have a shot at saving the ecosystem from the "oil spill" damage to date.

 

Good post. The quoted statement made me smile because I'm convinced that the next steps in raising our standard of living is being a lot less wasteful and material oriented. So while raising the standard of living seems to reduce population growth, using less (with a lot less pollution) is now an essential element of raising those standards.

 

Oh NO, we are all doomed

DBCassidy