- I can't agree with that. Care to take a guess on the current population of China, if not for the birth controls? Think of all those extra hundreds of millions consuming ever more resources, and scarcely able to pay their way economically due the an ever decreasing share of the resources that remain (raw resources plus social resources, welfare etc.). I think DA has a point.
I'm not disputing that birth controls were not required in China's case, I just don't think the 1 child policy is the major reason for China emerging as the most significant exporting country in the world - I think that has much more to do with China's Industrial Reform and Open-Door Policy of 1979, loads of foreign direct investment from the West (which has now reached 10 billion USD a month), and the enormous pool of cheap manufacturing labour.
- True - of course, you're not advocating that we 'breed like bunnies' to achieve that end. We would certainty be better off reducing the population and sacrificing the prospect of a proportionate number of geniuses in the process.
No, no breeding bunnies here. What I am advocating (rather than some Orwellian population control project) is bringing the 'disconnected" into the global community by development through expanding globalization, which incidentally has been shown to reduce birth rates to replacement levels, or in Japan's case, lower than replacement.
By the way - how's Japan's economy doing lately?
(this is tongue firmly planted in cheek, I realize there are a number of factors for the present state of Japan's economy).
- Your optimism is refreshing, especially the 9 billion bit.
I apologize if I am using wrong numbers, I seem to remember reading somewhere that stated global population projections would stabilize around 9 billion.
Just did some reading on the UN website. It shows a 'low variant' scenario with a stable population at 9 billion at 2050, with a 'high variant' of 10-11 billion, without stabilizing.
