Quote
That's a drastic change, if you're right- a linear population growth will take MUCH longer to reach the same number as an exponential population growth. Don't act like that's some insignificant detail
Notice how I said at most. I was being very generous because I can't really see that in that graph and you know you can't either. You're still missing the point... EVEN with linear growth, jobs will never catch up with population unless jobs increase as well, and at a faster rate than population growth. I thought this was a pretty simple idea but you're still acting like linear growth is negative growth, like the population is going to go down until it matches the jobs. You can make them match if you increase jobs at a fast enough rate... You cannot make them match with population control alone.
Quote
Initially, yes, but once the population was at a manageable number, people wouldn't be having as many children because they wouldn't be as poor. Americans often only have 1 child, or sometimes none at all, yet we're not deserpate for jobs- that's not a universal statement.
I'm glad you agree. Having less children did not lead to Americans being less poor, they had less children AFTER they became rich. It is an effect, not a cause... presenting it as a cause will require a lot more backing up on your part since I don't know any countries where that has worked before. Again, even linear growth is growth. The population will still be increasing. This is not a good thing. It will never reach a manageable number until it starts decreasing and continues decreasing for a long time. It's up to you to show me a country where the population actually decreased as a result of population control.
Given that the population will never decrease and that for some reason you are against making more domestic jobs over there as a better solution, forcing families to have less kids will only make them more desperate, not less. They will be living in WORSE conditions because they will have less money. Notice how the growth still hasn't changed in almost 30 years... are you actually advocating WORSE living conditions for these people for at least 30 YEARS on the off chance that at the end their population will start going down and American economy will be better?
Quote
What counter-arguments? Overpopulation is a very real threat- don't undermine it. We've all but destroyed our only natural predator- if the human race overpopulates past the ability for our planet to support us, we either will go extinct or die off by the billions.
Predators are not the only reason for the population cycle. There's also resources. If resources decrease enough, the population will decrease until the resources are enough for the new population. Once again, extinction is not possible for humans barring some Earth-destroying catastrophe. The only reason animals go extinct is that either they or their resources are
suddenly and
completely wiped out. Our resources are not going to suddenly and completely vanish, and it's pretty much pointless to worry about something coming along and wiping us all out, you don't need that kind of paranoia.
Quote
I hope you realize you're doing the exact same thing I'm doing- unfairly judging these people's lives. If I can't morally or accurately form an idea about their living conditions you can't morally or accurately tell me I'm wrong. In any case, do some research- you're not going to find any pleasent accounts of living conditions in overpopulated areas, Paladin.
I can morally and accurately say that you're wrong, because the people LIVING THERE have chosen to keep on living and keep on having children. Neither of us is qualified to decide these people's lives for them. You are doing it anyway. I am just pointing out their decision, which should be the only one that counts.
Show Posts
