http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14744915
Yes, the rate at which people, worldwide, are having offspring is declining.
Articles in the Oct 31st Economist go deeply into why this is happening.
Here's what I object to...
While forecasting anything out 40 years or more is generally suspect, in the case of demographics of humanity it is probably not that far fetched. However, all of the charts in the article end at 2050...
as if, when population begins to level off at 9BN individuals, there is some magical occurance, and human impacts on the environment are not as great...
"The world might indeed have the right numbers to boost growth and still have too many for the environment. The right response to that, though, would be to curb pollution and try to alter the pattern of growth to make it less resource-intensive, rather than to control population directly."
Okay, so population growth is slowing. Considerably. However, it appears that there will be (without some horrendous "culling" thanks to (insert apocalypse de jour)) well over 6BN people on the planet from now until 100 years from now...
No indication of how we're supposed to support that many people, while we eat everything that crawls or grows, or swims or flies, and totally decimate every ecosystem...
From another article on the same topic is this gem:
"...the human race will have to rely on technology and governance to shift the world's economy towards cleaner growth. Mankind needs to develop more and cheaper technologies that can enable people to enjoy the fruits of economic growth without destroying the planet's natural capital."
It is so easy to proclaim this, and yet, the US for example never even signed onto Kyoto Protocols and the Copenhagen session may be equally rancorous. At least The Economist editors agree that our current course is untenable...unlike all of the Human Caused Climate Chaos deniers...or those who would deny family planning and condoms to the "third world"...
The idea of "more and cheaper" (in terms of impact on the environment) technologies flies in the face of our very human nature.
The interconnectedness and fragility of the chemistry that supports the web of life is ignored, and the results (30, 40, 60 years from now) of our deprecations have been severely discounted (even while the article mentions "consequences of global warming - water shortages, mass migration, declining food levels").
"It's clear that meeting America's growing energy demand and keeping electricity supplies reliable and affordable will require the use of American coal. But can we use coal and meet the commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate change concerns?
In a word - yes!"
The URL says it all "BEYOND" ...........belief!
Frish - child free and grateful for it!
