4 ms·
I completely agree. There is no way to keep our population in check. After all, it is the natural life cycle. Order would be unbalanced.
by girkyturkey 11y ago
I completely agree. There is no way to keep our population in check. After all, it is the natural life cycle. Order would be unbalanced.
- jontas 11y agoLimited resources will always keep population in check. When population growth outstrips available resources, war (or some other catastrophic event that reduces population, eg. famine, drought, disease, etc.) is inevitable.
- alanwatts 11y ago>Limited resources will always keep population in check. Actually, the opposite is true to a degree. Limited resources increases the birth rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
- jontas 11y agoThat refers more to individual behavior. What I mean is that, simply, if the world runs out of food, people will die until the population reaches a level that can be supported by the available resources. I don't see how any other outcome is possible. This happens on a smaller scale in areas where food distribution is problematic. The only way around this is advances in technology that improve food production/distribution, but if this were to occur, then population would no longer outstrip resources and a new balance would be reached.
- alanwatts 11y agoRaising the standard of living does the trick quite well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility