RE: Discussion: Why Do We Need a “Growing” Population?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Slow growth or minus growth in populations would be a bonus for the world, we are over populated.
Mindset over last two centuries with colonization, moving people to fill new world with their 'own' peoples, some had large families knowing many would perish. no longer the case. In many ways this way of thinking backfired in hurting original people on the lands.
After wars the regrowth was what countries promoted. But we need to take a step back in history. More knowledgeable today than it was a hundred years ago.
Mindset growth should be directed toward being the best you can be not having to procreate large families.
Yes we have come far, yet we go backward, no longer building to last, rather built die-by-date forcing new manufacture, never ending cycle of economics, that is on a track ruining much.
While I reject the overpopulation assertion, I also reject the claim that population growth is always beneficial.
Fence sitting;
1.6 billion in 1900, to over 6 billion in 2000, expect 9.5 billion by 2050 socioeconomic problems follow.
Growth was beneficial when colonizing new world by British, Dutch, Spanish, French, all moved people in the belief of expansion.
Counterpoints: Malthusian predictions have consistently been wrong, technological progress is nothing short of miraculous, the best way to promote sustainability is through improved prosperity in a free market, and prosperous societies tend to slow their population growth, so we don't need to add new policies and plans.
Malthus lived (1766 – 1834) was around when the world hit 1 billion in 1804. Bit outdated since he would never have witnessed technology like we have.
Concur... technology has moved forward in many fields! Did not stop wars, water shortages, droughts, perhaps in time!
Balance needs to be found with nature, what is the tipping point?
I don't necessarily think growth itself is a negative so much as the underlying reasons why growth is being promoted as something that stands separate from just an "organic" ebb and flow of populations.
My point being, that just because we might argue that the planet "can" support more people do to advances and technology, is that a valid reason for a greater population? My answer to that is a definitive no. And most the the growth I observe is profit based, rather than human-based.
Quality, over quantity, is a much better mindset.
Quality life is something to strive toward, medical, education, food, finance, all in all a well balanced life between man and nature.
Lower numbers would assist when looking at our education alone, schools are overloaded, children arrive hungry. Not much stimulation leads to an idle life repeating same cycle, hopefully technology will open doors to make for change.
Current technology movement leads to fewer being employed, greed with very few advancing, profiteering being the main goal not improvement overall.