Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How long can society sustain its growing population?
pinggolfer96
Posts: 2,248 Member
Basically the title. We’ve increase by over 2.5 billion in a little over a couple decades. How do you think we will sustain ourselves or avoid problems (which we already have) like drought, increased Factory farming, extremely populated areas....etc. just curious on your opinion of how it will be in let’s say 50-100 years!
0
Replies
-
Depends how many mummified packs of Quest bars you have lying around.18
-
Wealthy developed nations have already started to equalize their birth rates with their death rates. Population growth in many of these countries has stopped or slowed to a crawl. The developing world is starting to catch up and places that were once low infrastructure and wealth with very high birth rates (China/India) are starting to increase their wealth and lower their birth rates. I'm optimistic that if we think globally and raise humanity as a whole up and can bring the standard of living of the world as a whole to a developed middle-class level that population growth will plateau and we will be okay. More worried about climate change or the impact of artifiical intelligence on economies really.15
-
Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.1 -
I don't put much stock in the gloom and doom projections. It is human nature to predict the end of all humanity within each generation. I wonder if this is linked to narcissism as those in power reach their own end and cannot comprehend a world existing without them.
We have experienced unprecedented growth and development in the last century. We are currently on a tech curve where immortality could be achieved within 40 years. At the same time we are approaching the end of using antibiotics and will see a dramatic increase in resistant bacteria and will have to develop new technology to counter this.
Humans are remarkably adaptable and have accomplished feats that defy logical explanation in the past. We will do so again.
Necessity is the mother of invention and we haven't "needed" much for a long time.3 -
50 years ago peak population was estimated at 5 Billion max sustainable. We're going to hit double that fairly soon.
We're amazingly adaptable. and there's still plenty of up to expand into.
With the right building and food tech, you could house the population of a small city(50K) in a 2-3 acre footprint. Power and water would be the two biggest limits and the Israelis seem to have cracked the code on the water issue and solar/nuclear/Geo will solve the power problem within the next 20 years(if we need to). We've been 20 years away from a solution for about 50 years. Just like we've been 20 years from peak oil and max sustainable population. When we need a solution we'll crack it, or we'll have a global plague/famine. Either way, problem solved.2 -
Don't worry, the Earth will self-regulate. It'll make adjustments to whatever we throw at it. It'll still be here long after we're gone.6
-
TheRoadDog wrote: »Don't worry, the Earth will self-regulate. It'll make adjustments to whatever we throw at it. It'll still be here long after we're gone.[/
I’m not talking about earth lol, Mother Nature plays its part, I’m talking about societies. I totally agree that everything works it’s way out in NATURE, the strong survive, and the weak die. Or that things adapt to stresses or issues, it’s the fact that we alter those natural stresses to avoid them, such as antiobiotics, increased food by Factory farming, increase infrastructure....etc. I believe that Darwin was correct in survival of the fittest, but everything is basically given to us now whether we’re fit or not lol.0 -
TheRoadDog wrote: »Don't worry, the Earth will self-regulate. It'll make adjustments to whatever we throw at it. It'll still be here long after we're gone.
I’m not talking about earth lol, Mother Nature plays its part, I’m talking about societies. I totally agree that everything works it’s way out in NATURE, the strong survive, and the weak die. Or that things adapt to stresses or issues, it’s the fact that we alter those natural stresses to avoid them, such as antiobiotics, increased food by Factory farming, increase infrastructure....etc. I believe that Darwin was correct in survival of the fittest, but everything is basically given to us now whether we’re fit or not lol.0 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »TheRoadDog wrote: »Don't worry, the Earth will self-regulate. It'll make adjustments to whatever we throw at it. It'll still be here long after we're gone.
I’m not talking about earth lol, Mother Nature plays its part, I’m talking about societies. I totally agree that everything works it’s way out in NATURE, the strong survive, and the weak die. Or that things adapt to stresses or issues, it’s the fact that we alter those natural stresses to avoid them, such as antiobiotics, increased food by Factory farming, increase infrastructure....etc. I believe that Darwin was correct in survival of the fittest, but everything is basically given to us now whether we’re fit or not lol.
I suspect our society will figure it out. But if they don't humanity will carry on(with much smaller population)0 -
Mother nature has a way of sorting things out and she doesn't pick sides or take prisoners. When animals over populate an area a new disease will level the field again. Look all throughout history there is and will always be a tipping point when things get wiped out and start over again. The scary part is that most humans have become so spoiled and disconnected from what they eat and how to survive it wouldn't take much to clear out a large population with something as simple as loss of power for a couple months. Every large city would implode and complete chaos would follow. Just do your best to be prepared, teach your children or grand children the basic survival skills that are being lost so when the time comes hopefully someone will be prepared. Or just stick your head in the sand and hope for the best. Either way mother nature will sort things out.0
-
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Mother nature has a way of sorting things out and she doesn't pick sides or take prisoners. When animals over populate an area a new disease will level the field again. Look all throughout history there is and will always be a tipping point when things get wiped out and start over again. The scary part is that most humans have become so spoiled and disconnected from what they eat and how to survive it wouldn't take much to clear out a large population with something as simple as loss of power for a couple months. Every large city would implode and complete chaos would follow. Just do your best to be prepared, teach your children or grand children the basic survival skills that are being lost so when the time comes hopefully someone will be prepared. Or just stick your head in the sand and hope for the best. Either way mother nature will sort things out.
Exactly, in the end, there’s no civil solution. It’s king of the hill when that time comes lol0 -
Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
I think it's still safe to say that that point is much further off numerically and much closer chronologically than we estimate.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
The problem is humans have forgotten how to provide their basic needs themselves. Humans have become lazy, entitled and spoiled. Society has changed and now believes luxuries are basic needs and some even have the audacity to think everyone is entitled to those so called basic needs but shouldn't have to do anything for them. For a society to thrive everyone has to do their part and contribute something no matter how small. As long as we have large populations of people whose entire existence and survival is dependent on others or technology we are doomed to fail. Basic instinct and natural selection aren't bad things.2 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
The problem is humans have forgotten how to provide their basic needs themselves. Humans have become lazy, entitled and spoiled. Society has changed and now believes luxuries are basic needs and some even have the audacity to think everyone is entitled to those so called basic needs but shouldn't have to do anything for them. For a society to thrive everyone has to do their part and contribute something no matter how small. As long as we have large populations of people whose entire existence and survival is dependent on others or technology we are doomed to fail. Basic instinct and natural selection aren't bad things.
I think you are transfering your own personal experience with those around you in your culture in a developed nation and acting as if it applies to the majority of people who live in less developed areas. They experience of American's/Canadians/Europeans etc probably applies to about 10% of the total world population. I don't think the problem with the majority of humans on this planet is too much focus on luxuries. I'm just talking the basics like shelter, clothing and enough food and infrastructure to remain healthy and I don't think the people who are striving for those things are distracted by a "need" for a iPad or a carmel macchiato.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
The problem is humans have forgotten how to provide their basic needs themselves. Humans have become lazy, entitled and spoiled. Society has changed and now believes luxuries are basic needs and some even have the audacity to think everyone is entitled to those so called basic needs but shouldn't have to do anything for them. For a society to thrive everyone has to do their part and contribute something no matter how small. As long as we have large populations of people whose entire existence and survival is dependent on others or technology we are doomed to fail. Basic instinct and natural selection aren't bad things.
I think you are transfering your own personal experience with those around you in your culture in a developed nation and acting as if it applies to the majority of people who live in less developed areas. They experience of American's/Canadians/Europeans etc probably applies to about 10% of the total world population. I don't think the problem with the majority of humans on this planet is too much focus on luxuries. I'm just talking the basics like shelter, clothing and enough food and infrastructure to remain healthy and I don't think the people who are striving for those things are distracted by a "need" for a iPad or a carmel macchiato.
You are way more optimistic about the human race than I am. I am rooting for mother nature.3 -
gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
The problem is humans have forgotten how to provide their basic needs themselves. Humans have become lazy, entitled and spoiled. Society has changed and now believes luxuries are basic needs and some even have the audacity to think everyone is entitled to those so called basic needs but shouldn't have to do anything for them. For a society to thrive everyone has to do their part and contribute something no matter how small. As long as we have large populations of people whose entire existence and survival is dependent on others or technology we are doomed to fail. Basic instinct and natural selection aren't bad things.
I think you are transfering your own personal experience with those around you in your culture in a developed nation and acting as if it applies to the majority of people who live in less developed areas. They experience of American's/Canadians/Europeans etc probably applies to about 10% of the total world population. I don't think the problem with the majority of humans on this planet is too much focus on luxuries. I'm just talking the basics like shelter, clothing and enough food and infrastructure to remain healthy and I don't think the people who are striving for those things are distracted by a "need" for a iPad or a carmel macchiato.
You are way more optimistic about the human race than I am. I am rooting for mother nature.
I'm rooting for humans because there are several of them I rather like. That is not to say I am rooting against nature, we are a part of nature and we require the environment to be a certain way in order to survive so of course it is in our best interest to maintain that. As for being optimistic I don't really think so, I just think for whatever reason it has become cool or edgy to openly root against our survival for whatever reason and to assume the worst of people even if the actual data doesn't support it.7 -
The US is at an all time low in birthrate right now.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gearhead426hemi wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Here's an interesting article on the matter written in 2016. It says the UN projection is that global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, and predictions on sustainability are pretty much all a matter of conjecture, scientific speculation and statistics because it's unprecedented.
The article is good in that it links to several fairly recent studies on various topis such as the fall in human fertility, estimated maximum population recommendations in various areas, and even a study that tried to estimate what would happen in the event of a catastrophic population reduction. Now, the veracity of the studies themselves is still something to investigate and weigh, but it's not a bad article to consider for the OP's basic question.
As for what I personally think? Based on our current trajectory and if we maintain our current attitude, the world as a whole is on a completely unsustainable path. Too many people in the world don't have their basic needs met already, and the more the population grows, the greater that pressure and disparity will grow. Given the particulars of history, that doesn't bode well.
In all honestly humanity as a whole is better off now than they were 50 years ago despite continued population growth so I disagree with the idea that a growing population equates to less coverage of basic needs. Obviously there is a limit to how much the population can grow before it causes shortages and issues but it is hard to say where that point is or if we will reach it before balancing factors or advancements come into play.
The problem is humans have forgotten how to provide their basic needs themselves. Humans have become lazy, entitled and spoiled. Society has changed and now believes luxuries are basic needs and some even have the audacity to think everyone is entitled to those so called basic needs but shouldn't have to do anything for them. For a society to thrive everyone has to do their part and contribute something no matter how small. As long as we have large populations of people whose entire existence and survival is dependent on others or technology we are doomed to fail. Basic instinct and natural selection aren't bad things.
I think you are transfering your own personal experience with those around you in your culture in a developed nation and acting as if it applies to the majority of people who live in less developed areas. They experience of American's/Canadians/Europeans etc probably applies to about 10% of the total world population. I don't think the problem with the majority of humans on this planet is too much focus on luxuries. I'm just talking the basics like shelter, clothing and enough food and infrastructure to remain healthy and I don't think the people who are striving for those things are distracted by a "need" for a iPad or a carmel macchiato.
You are way more optimistic about the human race than I am. I am rooting for mother nature.
I'm rooting for humans because there are several of them I rather like. That is not to say I am rooting against nature, we are a part of nature and we require the environment to be a certain way in order to survive so of course it is in our best interest to maintain that. As for being optimistic I don't really think so, I just think for whatever reason it has become cool or edgy to openly root against our survival for whatever reason and to assume the worst of people even if the actual data doesn't support it.
I'm rooting for humans because I are one. Yes, I know that's bad grammar. No, I don't care.
To borrow a sentiment from a Penn and Teller bit.
I would personally kill every monkey on the planet by hand to cure a single heroin Junkie with AIDS.3 -
The US is at an all time low in birthrate right now.
Yep. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low1 -
I think the advent of vaccines that prevent half or more of the child population from dying is and will continue to lead to lower birth rates, along with the combined effects of less labor required to sustain a family (this ties in strongly with the overall wealth of a nation). These are what drove high birth rates down previously in today's developed countries. It is and will continue to have an impact in developing nations as well.
Long story short: The population is stabilizing for a variety of reasons but it is stabilizing.1 -
Maybe I'm the optimistic type, but I think we will be okay. If I recall we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. Of course we need to balance our optimism with a fair bit of pessimism, so we don't stagnate or slip backwards, but don't believe the hype, it's not all doom and gloom.
1 -
Earth could support billions more human. At this point we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. We have technology to provide clean drinking water to everyone. We have clean energy sources. We have powerful healthcare abilities. We have room and resources. We have technology that makes like easier and more efficient. We know so, so much more about the world and how it works than we did even 50 years ago.
We're just really bad stewards of all the awesome *kitten* we've done, and generally are very selfish and competitive. We don't always use logic and our collective reason is tainted by emotion and limited worldview. So instead we have very poor nations, starving people, people without shelter or water, people who can't get basic medical care, people who kill people for resources and space. At this point it's a matter of humanity and how much people actually care to solve problems and show compassion beyond immediate family and friends. Honestly, from where I sit, it's not looking great.2 -
A long time. I have taken multiple road trips across the US and it is staggering how much unoccupied or sparsely occupied land is available (just like in most other countries around the world). We just choose to crowd together into urban areas and live on top of each other, and then lament how the population is out of control.4
-
Earth could support billions more human. At this point we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. We have technology to provide clean drinking water to everyone. We have clean energy sources. We have powerful healthcare abilities. We have room and resources. We have technology that makes like easier and more efficient. We know so, so much more about the world and how it works than we did even 50 years ago.
We're just really bad stewards of all the awesome *kitten* we've done, and generally are very selfish and competitive. We don't always use logic and our collective reason is tainted by emotion and limited worldview. So instead we have very poor nations, starving people, people without shelter or water, people who can't get basic medical care, people who kill people for resources and space. At this point it's a matter of humanity and how much people actually care to solve problems and show compassion beyond immediate family and friends. Honestly, from where I sit, it's not looking great.
The problem is that unless those resources are protected with force, the evil men who rule those poor starving nations will destroy the food on the docks.
TONS of food has been sent to Africa as aid by both nations and private charities and been destroyed, blocked, or left to rot by the governments of those poor nations.3 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »TheRoadDog wrote: »Don't worry, the Earth will self-regulate. It'll make adjustments to whatever we throw at it. It'll still be here long after we're gone.
I’m not talking about earth lol, Mother Nature plays its part, I’m talking about societies. I totally agree that everything works it’s way out in NATURE, the strong survive, and the weak die. Or that things adapt to stresses or issues, it’s the fact that we alter those natural stresses to avoid them, such as antiobiotics, increased food by Factory farming, increase infrastructure....etc. I believe that Darwin was correct in survival of the fittest, but everything is basically given to us now whether we’re fit or not lol.
Then, I have no idea. I'm 63 and have witnessed a lot of health and technological advancement. We have advanced at an incredible rate in the last 50 years. Can we continue to deplete our resources at this rate? I don't know. Most likely, I'll be dead in the next 3 decades and won't have to worry about the damage my generations has done to this planet. I apologise for what my generation has done and hope that your generation can turn it around.4 -
The US is at an all time low in birthrate right now.
Life expectancy goes up, infant mortality rates come down, fertility rates (birth rates) go down. That is typically how it goes with development and that is in general the way the entire world is headed.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035
Poverty and high mortality correlate with high birth rates while low mortality and high life expectancy correlate to low birth rates. So, although it might be counter intuitive, in general populations that live longer and have fewer infant and child deaths end up with lower population growth rates.
We elevate the world out of poverty and provide the necessary quality of life, infrastructure and health services to limit child mortality and increase life expectancy and birth rates will plummet and we will deal with our population issue. The countries with the highest life expectancy and lowest child mortality also have the lowest birth rates and lowest population growth. Japan which is at the top actually has negative population growth right now.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_x=sh_dyn_mort&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
The last 50 years have seen VAST improvements in child mortality rates globally. Things are actually looking up despite all the doom-and-gloom attitudes I see expressed. Those links are to raw data plots from world census data centers and at the bottom there is a slider for the year so you can see the change over time. That isn't some biased article that is phrasing things in an over-optimistic way, that is just the raw data.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The problem is that unless those resources are protected with force, the evil men who rule those poor starving nations will destroy the food on the docks.
TONS of food has been sent to Africa as aid by both nations and private charities and been destroyed, blocked, or left to rot by the governments of those poor nations.
I'm well aware of that. Which is why I think we can't support earth's current population, let alone a growing one, even though we actually have the capabilities to do so. We have a lot of just awful people making decisions for huge chunks of society, and decent people who have been blinded by power and greed (or going along with atrocity because they fear for their own lives and the lives of their families) all over the globe. I don't see any evidence of people successfully coming together to fix *kitten*.0 -
Unfortunately I think the news organizations in the developed world tend to promote content that is quite negative because that tends to garner more attention and views. Gives people the impression that the world is going to hell in a handbasket when the reality, if you look at the data, is that all indicators of quality of living globally (health, life expectancy, wealth, child mortality etc) have been steadily and rapidly increasing up until the present day. In terms of quality of life the world is better off now than it has ever been and yet you would not get that impression from our news sources.
I imagine if the news did up covering the diminishing birth rates (which are most certainly a good thing tied to improvements in quality of life) that they will cover it in terms of loss of fertility leading to some doomsday scenario like the Handmaid's Tale or something.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Unfortunately I think the news organizations in the developed world tend to promote content that is quite negative because that tends to garner more attention and views. Gives people the impression that the world is going to hell in a handbasket when the reality, if you look at the data, is that all indicators of quality of living globally (health, life expectancy, wealth, child mortality etc) have been steadily and rapidly increasing up until the present day. In terms of quality of life the world is better off now than it has ever been and yet you would not get that impression from our news sources.
I imagine if the news did up covering the diminishing birth rates (which are most certainly a good thing tied to improvements in quality of life) that they will cover it in terms of loss of fertility leading to some doomsday scenario like the Handmaid's Tale or something.
Yeah. News is now clickbate. Long form journalism is dying and the age old saying of, "if it bleeds, it leads," has only become more apparent and prevalent.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions