Saruwatari Ayumi (junglemonkee) wrote,
Saruwatari Ayumi

No, Really. What Is the Answer?

The Beeb ran this story this morning about declining birth rates in developing countries.

It has long been the case that birth rates in developed countries have been below "replacement" levels. The decrease was attributed to higher levels of education for women, better and more accessible birth control, more women going back to work.

But the way this story was presented, it sounds as though an alarm is being sounded. As though it is important that we keep the earth's population at nearly 7 billion.

In 1965, the population was about five billion and President Johnson declared that he would "seek new ways to use our knowledge to help deal with the explosion in world population and the growing scarcity of world resources."

Now, I understand that the problem of a birth rate below the replacement rate means that resources are strained by an aging population who don't work but consume more resources than a similar population of children.

But the number of people we have now isn't really sustainable.

So, what's the answer? Really?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.