would human population growth be good or bad right now

[CrazCo]

...

[iNow]

To whom?

[Phi for All]

Good or bad for what?

[CrazCo]

in general. i was wondering with the world having such a large number of inhabitants would it be most desirable for it to continue to grow or should we try to make a decline

[Riogho]

I don't think it's anyone's right to say whether anyone can have kids or not. So whether it is 'good' or 'bad' has no meaning.

[CrazCo]

look at china

[iNow]

in general. i was wondering with the world having such a large number of inhabitants would it be most desirable for it to continue to grow or should we try to make a decline

 

Well, in my opinion, and looking at the data (declining resources like water and food, inceasing pollution and climate change, etc...), we're diving quickly to our own extinction because we're reproducing too much. Either we need to find sources of resources beyond our own planet, or we need to have negative population growth for a while. It won't be pretty, but it will happen whether we want it to or not (nature is a real bee-atch sometimes).

[Phi for All]

in general. i was wondering with the world having such a large number of inhabitants would it be most desirable for it to continue to grow or should we try to make a decline

Are you talking about the human inhabitants? If so, on one hand it would be bad because of limited resources. On the other hand it would be good because it would eventually force us off-planet to find more resources.

 

"In general" is usually too broad a qualifier for scientific questions.

[npts2020]

With the current human situation, I would think it was a bad thing. Pressure on resources causes strife, especially when one group of people is seen as consuming the lion's share of them. How a larger population, putting even more strain on our ability to produce resources, can do anything other than exacerbate tensions I can't imagine. On the other hand, if you profit from warmongering and other human maladies it could be a good thing.

[Phi for All]

look at china

Are we looking at their immense population or the fact that they limit the number of children couples are allowed to have?

[Sayonara]

I don't think it's anyone's right to say whether anyone can have kids or not. So whether it is 'good' or 'bad' has no meaning.

Surely those are separate issues.

 

Whether or not anyone has that right will not change the consequences of population growth (although those consequences might well inform someone's decision to assume that right.)

[CaptainPanic]

I believe that in order to answer this question, you first have to define the goal of mankind, or the purpose of life.

 

Another way to answer the question would be to have 100% certainty about the future. Since we don't have this, we need assumptions.

 

One answer to that was already given: a purpose is to expand beyond our own planet. If that is the goal, and under the assumption that reduced availability will still enable us to set up a complicated project like interplanetary colonization, then it is a good thing.

 

If you assume that we'll eventually focus all our resources on fighting each other over the precious resources, then it probably goes into the "bad things category".

[Gilded]

I'd say if the population just keeps on growing at this rate things are going to get quite ugly in the next few decades. That might be beneficial for mankind's success as a species though.

[iNow]

CrazCo - You may be interested in reading articles about the Carrying Capacity of Earth. The wiki is pretty good:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

 

 

The way we're living now, it would take roughly 5-6 Earths to sustain, and yet we continue reproducing. I'm not a mathematician, but soemthing about the equation isn't reassuring.

 

 

Here's the last part of an interesting talk with Aubrey Manning (one of the worlds top ethologists) and another well known science guy.

[ecoli]

In terms of increasing economic growth, population growth would be a good thing... you can't ignore resource limiting factors, however.

[vampares]

I have posted before on DNA deterioration. I would think that the preservation of DNA would be best seen in a nontrivial population increase.

 

I had some maps and graphs on this thing as well. Shows population increasing in peculiar ways. One family in Africa may have 10 kids. Projection show that to be very detrimental.

 

The Malthusian factor is very accurate as well. Sustaining a population of such a size with so few resources is near impossible -- much less maintaining the environment.

 

 

Other countries -- notably those of European decent will be eclipsed by the population growth of other countries. There will be a push for resources on these communities by those fleeing the others.

 

The way we're living now, it would take roughly 5-6 Earths to sustain, and yet we continue reproducing.

 

This statement is misread many times to mean "STOP REPRODUCING". That is very bad policy. A female must produce 2 children for the population to be sustained (not a small task). In cultures of "birth control" they are now suffering aging populations and replacements by foreigners.

Edited December 9, 2008 by vampares
multiple post merged

[iNow]

This statement is misread many times to mean "STOP REPRODUCING". That is very bad policy.

 

Not as bad as reproducing beyond what our available resources can sustain.

 

Since we crested the point which our planet could actually sustain decades ago, I'd say any argument in favor or maintaining current reproduction rates (status quo) falls flat on it's face due to a lack of connection with reality.

[Mokele]

I don't think it's anyone's right to say whether anyone can have kids or not. So whether it is 'good' or 'bad' has no meaning.

 

Why not?

 

Imagine we all live on a space station, with no supplies from Earth. The station can grow a fixed amount of food, filter a fixed amount of water, and generate a fixed amount of oxygen. Since there are no supplies from Earth, no expansions can be built. Now, one of the couples wants to have 6 kids, pushing the station beyond its maximum capacity. If you allow them, that means someone else must sacrifice their ability to have kids, and what if nobody else volunteers, or everyone has already had 2? What do you do? You clearly can't let them have the kids, as everyone will die. The survival of the whole group vastly outweighs the one couple's right to decide on their own reproduction.

 

As you're probably figured out, this is an analogy for Earth.

 

Mokele