In the post-modern era there seems to be two controversial polar opposite perceptions concerning human population and that is the group that espouses that the world is going through sub-replacement fertility where the other group is saying the world is dangerously overpopulated. In hindsight I thought it would be interesting to create a thread of debate between both of these groups to see who has a more firm grasp on reality between the two.
From Wikipedia:
Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate (TFR) that (if sustained) leads to each new generation being less populous than the older, previous one in a given area. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[1] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement was 2.33 children per woman in 2003.[1] This can be “translated” as 2 children per woman to replace the parents, plus a “third of a child” to make up for the higher probability of boys being born and early mortality prior to the end of their fertile life.[2]
Replacement level fertility in terms of the net reproduction rate (NRR) is exactly one, because the NRR takes both mortality rates and sex ratios at birth into account.
Map of countries by fertility rate (2015)
As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[3] Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, the United States and many others. The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Taiwan, Ukraine and Lithuania. Only a few countries have had, for the time being, sufficiently sustained sub-replacement fertility (sometimes combined with other population factors like higher emigration than immigration) to have population decline, such as Japan, Germany, Lithuania, and Ukraine.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-rep … _fertility
Versus…
The human population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death, around the year 1400, although the most significant increase has been in the last 50 years, mainly due to medical advancements, increases in agricultural productivity and the historically unique availability of abundant cheap energy. The rate of population growth has been declining since the 1980s. As of 2011, the United Nations Population Division projected global population growth will nearly halt by 2050, stabilizing at around 9.15 billion.[5] Most contemporary[clarification needed] estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion.[citation needed] In 2013 the human population was 7 billion. By 2025 the world population is expected to grow by an additional 1 billion.[6] Depending on which estimate of overpopulation is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred.
The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, circa 1994, has stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, are aggravated by the population expansion.[7] Other problems associated with overpopulation include the increased demand for resources such as fresh water and food, starvation and malnutrition, consumption of natural resources (such as fossil fuels) faster than the rate of regeneration, and a deterioration in living conditions.[8] However, some believe that waste and over-consumption, especially by wealthy nations, is putting more strain on the environment than overpopulation.[9]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
So, which is it? Out of both groups, who has it correct?
Versus
Kriswest
June 17, 2016, 10:39pm
2
If these folks actually studied more than just humans they would see a natural behavior.
