Reducing the population by voluntary means won't solve the world's environmental issues. Underdeveloped countries, like Mexico and India, have the highest birthrates. Developed countries, like Europe and the U.S. have low birthrates. In fact, the population of the U.S would be declining if it weren't for immigration. It would seem then that the way to reduce the world's population would be for all nations to develop their economies to be more like those of the U.S. and Europe. The problem there is that economies like ours use more natural resources per person.We need to save the earth by figuring out how to make more - energy, food, water, plasma televisions - with fewer natural resources.
Found in the West Village. Big surprise.
My StumbleUpon Page
2 comments:
Hey, I found your blog by way of Evilchefmom.blogspot.com
I like it, but I found a couple things off about this post.
First, the estimated population growth rate in India is 1.578%. The rate in México is 1.142%, and the US has an estimated growth rate of 0.883%. So, the growth rate in México is closer to the US rate (0.259% difference) than to the Indian rate (0.436% difference).
This is taking into account birth rate, death rate, migration etc. Just so you know, Mexico has approx 20.04 births for every 1, 000 people, while India has 22.22 for every thousand. These aren't even the "highest birthrates", as you wrote. Hardly.
It may seem like small potatoes to you, but 0.1% is actually a BIG difference when you're talking about population. (Btw, these numbers come from the CIA Factbook)
You're talking about economic and environmental issues, which can hardly be simplified (or they can, but they shouldn't) You seem to have the grasp of it when you write that industrial economies, while having smaller populations, use more natural resources.
Oh, and one more thing. Europe is not a country. It kinda makes you seem like a DumbAmerican when you write that, which you're probably not. One hopes.
Sorry if you found this annoying, just sticks in my craw when people talk about developed vs. underdeveloped countries. By some (a lot) of measurements, many people in the United States live in some pretty "underdeveloped" conditions. cheers
I didn't say that Mexico and India have the highest birth rates, I merely used them as examples of underdeveloped countries with high birth rates. Those two nations stick out because they already have large populations so that, even if their birth rates aren't the highest, they still produce more people than smaller countries with higher birth rates.
And I know that Europe is not a country. I said that all nations could develop their economies to be like those of the U.S. and Europe. Europe, taken as a whole, has an economy that can be emulated by individual nations, even if Europe itself is not a country.
Lastly, the U.S is a developed country. You would have to drive a long way to find areas without electricity, running water, a telephone or a McDonalds. There are countries in this world where such conditions are only a bike ride away...down a unpaved road, swarming with malaria-carrying mosquitos. Underdeveloped nation is an accurate way to describe those places, and it sounds a lot better than God-forsaken hellhole.
Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment