Faelco said:
For the overpopulation : http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
So yes, we can maybe feed 50 billions africans, but only 2.5 bilions americans. We are at 7.4 billions people now, and not all africans... You can also read about the http://www.overshootday.org/ to see that the human's demand in ressources is way too high already, and you can't solve that with a miraculous technology in just a few years, it's also a population issue. Wars and diseases are indeed caused by population density, but also population movements and needs. The population is really badly distributed, some populated areas will be drowned because of the global warming, and vital resources will become scarcer. So yes, it is known that there will be wars, nothing to do with WW2 here : http://www.gechs.org/will-global-warming-cause-more-wars/ I agree we could manage a lot bigger population with a perfect geopolitic peace, some technological breaktroughs, a well managed and distributed population, new ways of consommation for everyone... But that's not how the human population is and it won't be, maybe ever. So no, in this current state, the population can't grow too much without consequences. |
I second this response. Overpopulation is not to be taken lightly, as there are some regions in the world that do not live off the minimum (i.e., most developed countries). That would not have been a problem if most humans were vegetarians, but the fact that we are omnivores makes this much more difficult. Would you be willing to give up meat for the sake of the planet? Livestock growth is known to be one of the main reasons of global warming. The latest Isaac Asimov debate was about water, and it was mentioned that fresh water is being rapidly depleted, at a rate at which it cannot replenish. I presume that, unfortunately in the not too distant future, war over fresh water will not be a far fetched idea. I'm not too well versed on the propagation of diseases that could kill millions, but it is not unreasonable to think that, were there a disease breakout in developed countries, the response would have to be really quick. Otherwise, the densely populated areas around the world will be severely affected.
As it has been said in the conclusion, we will need new technology breakthroughs (i.e., how to desalinize salt water, at an efficient cost), and far better management of resources and livestock. But at this current rate, if nothing significant is done, and the world population keeps growing at this rate, the consequences could be severe.
As far as the policy goes, good on them for increasing the cap, and for spending more money on elderly care. That's a step towards ethical correctness I suppose.