3 ms·
Population control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at
by Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Population control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years. Birth rates are declining in developed countries and the undeveloped world is rapidly developing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
- QAPereo 9y agoIt isn’t necessary only if massive inequality persists, and our tech just plain saves us all. What a crazy fucking bet when the stakes are the future of human civilization.
- darkmarmot 9y agoHonestly, evolution says that it won't. Long-term, breeders will "out-compete" those that limit their household size. Without external political forces or wholesale genetic engineering, we're in for a rough ride.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- shezi 9y agoThere are various examples where breeders did not outcompete, and instead a population settled on a low birth rate. Any animal that is not predator-dominated, really, but the best-known examples are New Zealands Kakapo [1] and Panda bears [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo#Breeding [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#Reproduction
- ptha 9y agoHans Rosling has done some research and ted talks about this: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...
- mac01021 9y ago> stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years but is that small enough or soon enough to avoid environmental catastrophe?