An aging population can present serious economic and social problems. The U.K. has an a minor 'aging population' problem partly as a result of the post WWII baby boom and partly due to increased longevity, and has had to make social and economic adjustments that affect quality of life and standard of living; but that's not even a pale shadow of the kind of adjustments and hardships that could arise from global population reduction. In the extremely overpopulated and poor third world regions, where it would be most required, the result of reducing the population, rather than merely slowing/stopping growth, could be catastrophic.
Of course you're right - here in Canada, we're trying to figure out how to maintain our public health care system, and pension plans in the face of an aging population. Our solution - immigration. So we steal the best and brightest from the countries that need them the most. Not the best solution.
But at any rate - what I was previously trying to get across, is that any reduction in population that is caused by a lowered birth rates is going to result in an aging population. There's no getting around that. Population growth is more young people than old people - if we want the population to stabilize, young people have to be equal in number to old people, there's your aging population.
It looks to me like the one and only way to achieve a 50% reduction within a hundred years (short of armageddon)is through enforced birth control.
Conclusion: it can be done.
I don't know if it can be done, practically speaking. We're already seeing huge resistance from traditional societies who don't want to accept modern societies morals - that homosexuals, should not only be "tolerated", but accepted, or that women are more than property - how do you think those traditional societies will respond to enforced birth control? I have an idea, and it isn't pretty.
Is there a feasable alternative? I think so. Given enough time, there should be no 'third world' regions. It's in the interests of all nations that this happens as soon as possible. As a result of the process, growth rates should fall sharply.
We have the DNA that allows positive and constructive action. We also have brains which, evidently, DNA has found advantageous, so the least we can do is try to use them.
Agree 100% with you. Lets loose this concept of under-developed countries, bring modern society to every man, woman and child in this world. Lower birth rates will follow, and in addition, we will be using all the brains that are present on this earth to move us forward as a species (rather than just 1/3 of the brains).
This is the reason why the Davos Trade talks are so critically important. The agricultural subsidies that the US and Europe provides to it's own agriculture sector is keeping 3rd world countries mired in poverty. For those countries without natural resources, their only path towards development is through selling agricultural products - but they can't compete with the rich subsidies Western farmers are getting. Barriers to trade also have to come down to give 3rd world access to Western markets, as well as to give them access to Western investment.
If we keep the 3rd world barred off from the West, it's going to take much longer for them to develop, and will take much longer to get their birthrates under control. It's too bad that unions and farmers can't get that "global perspective' when they're opposing the latest trade agreement, or the Davos talks.
Any feedback on whether we need to actually reduce our population, or if it's more a matter of engaging the ingenuity of the entire population to address our issues?
