That's just what i think. The Chinese government introduced the policy in 1978 to alleviate the social and. I am considering paying myself. Of course, this was the basic argument made by Malthus and his fellow-pessimists over a century earlier. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg—or, on a more prosaic level, whoever it was that invented the chain coffee shop on the high street. Today, the population pessimists emphasize the environmental damage and depletion of natural resources caused by an overpopulated planet.
The expanding production of fossil fuels will lead to more carbon in the environment and climate change. Those should be our aims. In truth, they are the pivotal agent in the campaign to avert global warming. While Simon Butler is a smart man and has written some brilliant things, this is not one of them. Loss of wilderness and human connection to the natural world.
Cons: Massive environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, extinctions, pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, deforestation, resource shortages - probably leading to food and water shortages, social tension and violence, climate refugees, famine. Unfortunately, fossil fuels are finite resources and once they are gone, they are gone for good. Later on, something unexpected happened as the Industrial Revolution modernized Europe. But Malthus vehemently opposed giving government relief, such as food and shelter, to the impoverished. Which of the possible scenarios seems less conducive to human misery? A Comprehensive Approach Though any discussion of the increasing human population would be incomplete without a survey of the physical constraints to growth, symposium participants emphasized the importance of integrating social and economic factors as well.
In addition, climate change may intensify these threats. I think we should defiantly be concerned about population growth. Need to Know is made possible by Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Mutual of America, Citi Foundation, John D. The pessimists call for stepped up U. Humans who contribute to waste by a factor of 18 times more than they contribute to cleaning up should be euthanized.
Oil and will be replaced by electricity by 2025 if the electric trend continues. In their view, our current population should be reduced to one or two billion or so. The areas where I fear problems is India and Bangadesh. Buddhist chauvinists in Myanmar have fomented fears of high birth rates among Muslims; this measure is likely to be used against Rohingyas. The Artic and Greenland ice shelves are melting, seas have risen and there is evidence of a threat to costal communities. Microloans are an excellent idea.
In addition, intolerance is the decision of a person to not tolerate, which is unrelated to voting. Then, look at our food producers. More people brings more suffering. As you indicate, only the final few Hoff sentences get to the point. They have the right to have as many kids as they want. Just ask the management of BlackBerry or Nokia.
As far as having the right to live, rights are not god-given and they are not guaranteed from birth, they are only guaranteed by government. Population control is an old argument tacked onto a new issue Climate change is just the latest in a long list of issues that has been seized on by advocates of population control. Aside from abortion, for example, take the whole homosexuality and transgender issue. Human-caused environmental problems are obvious to anyone who has the vaguest consciousness of what is happening in the world, and the rate of their increase correlates closely with population growth. If a similar situation was applied to a smaller population, the disease wouldn't spread as quickly and then there would be more time to find a cure. Connection or not the vast majority of scientist say our planet is under siege and stressed. A major disagreement among demographic experts threatens to upend efforts to include population control and family planning programs in the United Nations new development agenda.
I think a combination of education and tax will do the trick. According to , the cost of housing is likely to rise due to limited space. Pros of having a large human population: Efficiency of mass transportation, certain large-scale industrial and manufacturing processes, economies of scale - high demand and lower prices. Consider how 3 years ago in Malaysia my partners sister died of cancer at 46 after getting an extra 3 years of life from high quality natural products. More children will likely result in more people working as adults, therefore, pay more taxes.
Nor are there many greater intrusions on human rights. Within human time scales there are not going to be any more. It would also have dangerous consequences for a global environment. G of Spanish decent born as an American. I had no idea how fast it was rising.
It seems human rights and falling fertility can go together. I agree with the eugenics and also prenatal testing with the abortion of problematic fetuses. It is like money in the bank, it can only be spent once. See the state department's 2002 investigation on the subject. The success of the policy has been questioned, and reduction in fertility has also been attributed to the modernization of China.