If the fertility replacement rate of our species falls below 2.1, our population will decline. One of science's dirty little secrets is that we are flirting with falling below that line now.
The notion that our species is suffering from overpopulation is a myth. If you took every single man woman and child alive on Earth today and put them all in Texas, how much space would everybody have to themselves? An acre. That's right, every man woman and child alive today would have an acre all to themselves if we were all crammed into the state of Texas.
In Africa, the decline in fertility rates is mainly due to diseases such as AIDS. In China, overpopulation fears have caused the government to institute measures to keep their fertility rates down. In most of western Europe and North America, abortion and birth control have been driving fertility rates down since the 1960s and 70s.
for more infomation go to google:
SUB-REPLACEMENT FERTILITY
2006-09-02 02:55:30 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Ignorance is bliss.
You are all WRONG.
Underpopulation is going to be a MAJOR issue in the next 200 -300 years. Once our fertility rate falls below 2.1 we are doomed as a species.
Right now we stand at about 2.4
2006-09-03 06:09:29 · update #1
Well, I gave it my best... had my two kids..
Wife wont let me proprogate anymore, with other wimmin, so, I guess I will leave that to others :) LOL!!!
Have a Great Day!!
I wish you well..
Jesse
2006-09-02 03:04:57 · answer #1 · answered by x 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
There are a lot of inaccuracies in your statements which makes me think that the place it originated from is deliberately distorting the truth.
The population will only decline when people are dying faster than they are being born. A fertility replacement rate of 2.1 would see a huge rise in the population. For example, the FRR in the UK is 1.4 and the population is still rising - I would imagine it's a similar figure in the US.
Texas has an area of 270,000 square miles or 700,000 square kilometers or 172,000,000 acres. The population of the world is 6.5 billion. If everyone were put into Texas each person would have 95 square meters of space - that's 38 people per acre.
Don't forget that three quarters of the worlds surface is ocean and that there are billions of acres of infertile land in the polar regions, mountains, deserts, forests etc. The amount of land which is suitable for habitation or agriculture is a tiny fraction of the worlds surface.
In places like America and Europe agriculture is highly intensive and there is a good yield per acre, in the Asian and African countries a much greater area is required to produce the same yield so instead of each person having one acre each person needs more like 100 acres.
The fertility rate is not declining in Africa, it's increaseing. The effects of AIDS is comparatively small with many countries having an incidence of AIDS of less than 3 or 4% (check the CIA World Factbook for specific rates for each country). The population of Africa is rapidly increasing as it is throughout much of the world.
The population of the world has more than doubled in the last 40 years and whilst the speed at which the population is growing has declined slightly it's still predicted that by 2050 there will be approximately 10 billion people on the planet (United Nations predictions).
The fact that China has implemenmted a one child per couple policy is completely contrary to the point you are making and demonstrates that drastic action is needed to curb the rising population.
I'd go back and check your sources as they're completely unreliable - at best they're mistaken and at worst they're deliberately telling lies.
2006-09-02 10:28:17 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Your "question" has only the facts needed to support your argument, and a huge inaccuracy with your Texas statement:
6,950,000,000 people (in a few years) into 695,000,000,000sq m. Everyone would have about 100 SQUARE METERS, or a 10x10m square, which is about two rooms of space.
I googled as you said, and although some countries are at or below replacement, the population of the world is still increasing. Even if the population of the world was halved, there would still be 3,000,000,000 people, hardly at risk of dying out.
Shouldn't you focus on improving people's QUALITY of life instead of focusing on its QUANTITY?
2006-09-02 16:29:58 · answer #3 · answered by candy2mercy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
texas isn't quite as big as giving everybody an acre:
how about looking at this website as a comment:
http://ingles.homeunix.org/rants/density.html
I agree, would you want to have your own acre of land full of desert and nothing else?
It will be very beneficial to earth as a habitat if the human population would indeed decline. I don't think we have to worry about humanity dying out for quite a considerabe while yet.
2006-09-02 19:35:43 · answer #4 · answered by convictedidiot 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no; there are so many breeders out there who just can't think of actually having a life other than putting more humans on an overcrowded and stressed planet.
2006-09-02 10:02:54 · answer #5 · answered by almostvoid 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sorry your facts do not add up. Try again.
2006-09-02 10:01:40 · answer #6 · answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
great news! i was thinking of having ten kids. i guess it's a good idea now!
2006-09-02 10:01:16 · answer #7 · answered by mayami 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think that this is a bunch of bunk!
2006-09-02 10:01:52 · answer #8 · answered by kelly j 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋