I may be misinterpreting your graph but it appears that population growth has boomed since the 70s onward with the 200k daily births occurring around 06 and all estimates afterward are based on the previous growth trends. How do we know that the birth rates won't slow down? In my state of California , teen birth rates alone have dwindled (a good thing). Also population growth and the reasons vary among countries, we may not all trend in the same direction at the same time. Just seems to me we ought to worry more about density than numbers. Too many people in one place is more of a problem than too many people in a very broad space.

I do agree that 20 kids per couple is a bit much if not for the sake of our environment, then at least for the sake of humanity. The Duggars prime breeding years were in their 20s/30s and they're having kids well into their 40s when the likelihood for birth defects is greatest not to mention Mrs. Duggar has been pregnant nearly all of her adult life! I imagine her reproductive environment has been seriously overhauled. You can only use an oven so many times before it starts to break down.

I may be misinterpreting your graph but it appears that population growth has boomed since the 70s onward with the 200k daily births occurring around 06 and all estimates afterward are based on the previous growth trends. How do we know that the birth rates won't slow down? In my state of California , teen birth rates alone have dwindled (a good thing). Also population growth and the reasons vary among countries, we may not all trend in the same direction at the same time. Just seems to me we ought to worry more about density than numbers. Too many people in one place is more of a problem than too many people in a very broad space.

I do agree that 20 kids per couple is a bit much if not for the sake of our environment, then at least for the sake of humanity. The Duggars prime breeding years were in their 20s/30s and they're having kids well into their 40s when the likelihood for birth defects is greatest not to mention Mrs. Duggar has been pregnant nearly all of her adult life! I imagine her reproductive environment has been seriously overhauled. You can only use an oven so many times before it starts to break down.

I may be misinterpreting your graph but it appears that population growth has boomed since the 70s onward with the 200k daily births occurring around 06 and all estimates afterward are based on the previous growth trends. How do we know that the birth rates won't slow down? In my state of California , teen birth rates alone have dwindled (a good thing). Also population growth and the reasons vary among countries, we may not all trend in the same direction at the same time. Just seems to me we ought to worry more about density than numbers. Too many people in one place is more of a problem than too many people in a very broad space.

I do agree that 20 kids per couple is a bit much if not for the sake of our environment, then at least for the sake of humanity. The Duggars prime breeding years were in their 20s/30s and they're having kids well into their 40s when the likelihood for birth defects is greatest not to mention Mrs. Duggar has been pregnant nearly all of her adult life! I imagine her reproductive environment has been seriously overhauled. You can only use an oven so many times before it starts to break down.

apparently there is no shortage of resources, it's just there is no focus on the distribution of it. Even water.

women are designed to be constantly pregnant and breastfeeding
thanks to good nutrition and medicine, and hardly anyone dying in childbirth any more, the fertile period is now insanely long!

that is true right now, but do you think that will continue to be true as the population increases?

No, we're not.

Being pregnant even under normal circumstances is pretty hard on the body. There's a reason there are so many programs and initiatives in third world countries to teach women to space out their pregnancies and have fewer children.

I read in New Scientist magazine that it wasn't an imminent problem as politicans are making things out to be IF infrastructure is put in place and ways to transport goods are concentrated on.

(if we do nothing - as we do now - to distribute, then yes, HUGE problem - but you know how it is, if someone can make a huge profit doing it, it WILL get done)

Like eugenics and stuff is never going to be required to sort it out like they used to believe 50 years ago

women are designed to be constantly pregnant and breastfeeding
thanks to good nutrition and medicine, and hardly anyone dying in childbirth any more, the fertile period is now insanely long!

I read in New Scientist magazine that it wasn't an imminent problem as politicans are making things out to be IF infrastructure is put in place and ways to transport goods are concentrated on.

(if we do nothing - as we do now - to distribute, then yes, HUGE problem - but you know how it is, if someone can make a huge profit doing it, it WILL get done)

Like eugenics and stuff is never going to be required to sort it out like they used to believe 50 years ago

I think we in the first world need to drastically re-evaluate our consumption. On the whole, we aren't having that many babies compared to global figures, but we go through a lot of resources we don't really need, and much of it is waste.

to include shipping it out to those who can't get to it
(we apparently produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the world)

it's not economically viable right now, but put some incentives in place
(like those carbon offsets you can buy) and it can be MADE viable

to include shipping it out to those who can't get to it
(we apparently produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the world)

it's not economically viable right now, but put some incentives in place
(like those carbon offsets you can buy) and it can be MADE viable

We need to develop some kind of approach wherein resources are both more evenly distributed, and those of us who are the global "haves" re-think what we consider needs. Just think of the number of people who own more than one car or drive when they could easily walk, for example.

also some way to re-use parts. I can't stand to see how much we throw away, such as computers & electronic equipment

And recycling has come a long way, but still we can't recycle a pizza box because it has some cheese on it? what a waste

I get about 4 phone books a year and haven't opened any of them. Colorado just failed to pass a bill that fined phone book companies who gave out books to people who don't want them. So we're required to have these 1000 page books every year that we don't want. I don't even have a land line anymore.

Recycling is nice, but what about re-using milk bottles like we used to? Soy milk comes in non-recyclable boxes.

and on and on...

I didn't know that, they haven't said anything to us about that
and phone books we get 5 each year, each one 4" thick - NEVER do I look in those things

I put my pizza boxes in the recycling, but I know they've said not to put anything in there that is dirty from food, specifically pizza boxes

oh oops

^If Im washing a jar Im keeping the damn thing.

the duggars recycle and buy things second hand

the duggars recycle and buy things second hand