Loudmouth I think I know enough about you to know you while saying we are not over populated yet do not forget the standards some live in are well below what we both want, that, not the fear we will crush each other to death, or die of mass starvation drove me in starting this conversation,I share some thoughts but have little trust in the powers that in truth run this world,faith, every one of them, divides us, humanity one day if we are to progress should become one

Belly,

sure, but one thing, over-population, may not be the cause of the other, poverty. There may be many other factors such as employment, education, class, gender and ethnic inequality. I was surprised too read that, going back forty or fifty years ago, South Korea was far more poverty-stricken than North Korean, which it seems was traditionally the wealthier half. Nowadays of course, South Korea is far more affluent on the whole than North Korea. So what caused that rapid turnaround ? Economic development, technological innovation and probably a measure of desperation. Perhaps much higher levels of inequality too, more equal opportunity - there isn';t much equality of opportunity in 'socialist' countries, with Party parasites (being in control) parcel out far more opportunities to their own.

Wait and see: if African countries can overcome the idiot parochialism, nepotism and corruption that is plaguing their societies, they too will start to forge ahead.

Gotta go - making Anzac biscuits.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth said "Please check your maths. "

Answer- Yes I did check my maths and yours appears incorrect.
Would you provide a link to the document that you used so everyone can check your maths. I've already included the link I used.

I understand that people aren't going to change views that they have held for a lifetime easily. No matter what the evidence is. A persons identity is often tied up in their belief system. If they changed their views they might be rejected from their social group. I'm very lucky to have a social group that has accepted me through my changes.

Hi CDog,

Yeah, che king my figures, you've got me there :) But those annual birth figures are coming down - I remember that a few years ago, population growth across the world was more than ninety million. So now it's down to seventy five million, as you rightly point out. But the UN figures themselves suggest an annual population rise of only sixty million between 2030 and 2050, and only an average of 28 million per year between 2050 and 2100. Obviously, it's possible that the annual growth will be higher at the front end, 2050, than at the back end, 2100, to the point where net population growth may be zero.

So I don't think we need to contemplate any need for some sort of UN authoritarian emergency measures (if this is shat's being suggested) to, somehow, somewhere, drastically cut populations in unnamed countries and regions. There are so many other ways around what may turn out not to be a problem at all. Seriously.

Anzac biscuits looking good !

Cheers,

Joe

Humans will not do anything to help others unless they can gain from helping. This ranges from donations ( tax deductible of course) to help in person at some charity where they can be seen which makes them feel good.
In order to get the poor in countries of conflict to turn around & take initiative foreign aid must be by way of commodities that can help them help themselves, not money handed to their governments where it stops. No wonder the poor have given up, they simply can't see a way out because there's no incentive for them. One such incentive could be to supply them with commodoties in return for adhering to a two-children policy. This would change their situation overnight, literally.
At this stage, the planet can support 8 billion humans but 3 billion humans can no longer support the 5 billion other humans without sacrificing what life & the environment should be all about.

Dog,

Just looking at the rate of population growth again: on your figures, between 2010 and 2030, world population is expected to rise by 75 million, to 8.5 billion, or roughly not quite 1 % p.a. Between 2030 and 2050, by 1.3 billion in 20 years, or roughly 65 million per year; and by roughly 28 million per year between 2050 and 2100. 28 million out of 11.2 billion is only a quarter of a per cent per year. 0.25 %. So ZPG by 2100 is probably on the cards.

Does anybody really imagine that human ingenuity, innovation, advances in technology, etc., etc., etc., won't be increasing, say, food production around the world by less than a quarter of a per cent per year ? Some advances in food and production technology etc., even now kick up food production in many areas by two to five per cent per year.

No, the sky isn't falling, and it probably won't, ever - at least, not on population grounds.

Joe