2 ms·
Fertility rates are actually dropping and have for a few decades [1]. It takes time for that to actually translate into stabilising population. Its like throt
by 7952 13y ago
Fertility rates are actually dropping and have for a few decades [1]. It takes time for that to actually translate into stabilising population. Its like throttling down the engine on a spacecraft, your total altitude (population) will continue to rise even though the acceleration (fertility rate) has dropped.
So we have to equip the world to provide for the great grand children of the fertile people from forty years ago. That growth is unavoidable, even with lower levels of fertility. Sustainable design is just the optimal most efficient way of dealing with that growth.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
- wahsd 13y agoWe are already at unsustainable population levels and the majority of populations are still growing and countries with negative population growth are constantly urged to promote population growth. I realize that fertility rates are dropping and I realize there is inertia, but decreasing acceleration is still not negative acceleration.
- 7952 13y agoBut my point is that there is very little you can do to alter a growth that is already baked into the system. A country with a large youth population will continue to increase in size even if they only have two children per family. I agree that humanity has a very negative ecological impact. But that is a basic facet of human society, not population growth. All industrial economies devastate the native ecosystem in which they exist. Forcing people to abandon the chance of children does not change that. Your argument is trite and does not offer any real insight.