The fewer people there are, the less resources are needed to support them, and the more evenly wealth can be distributed (IN THEORY) in reality the more wealth can be accumulated by business and government,because less people are one government funded programs, or collecting unemployment
2006-09-19 18:03:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the population grows too much, resources are overwhelmed. If there aren't enough young people, the work force shrinks.
I'm not sure how effective it is for the gov to regulate population, or if it is an invasion of privacy for them to do so, but I think the issues I listed are the reasons why they try
2006-09-20 01:02:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by mollyneville 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are a lot of things. But the main one is an easy one .. China has about 1.2 billion people in about the same area as the USA. The USA currently has 300 million people and it is getting tight around here. Just think what it would be like if there was 4 times as many people living here. Wow .. we would be eating dogs and cats just like they do in china. You would have one large food bill and not much land to grow food on. You think the cities are full and busy now just think about it for a minute. It would be rough because of all the crime and we just might have to go to a dictator ship to control it all.
2006-09-20 01:06:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Don K 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've recently read "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail", by Jared Diamond. Fasciniating book. In it, he examines how many societies which have preceded us, have prospered or failed based on a multitude of factors. One significant factor he pointed out was that certain societies, primitive though they may have been, figured out that if they didn't control their population growth they would eventually outstrip the resources which were necessary to sustain them. They would use rudimentary birth control, delay the age of marriage, and as cold as it sounds, infanticide to keep their numbers in check. These societies realized that a blossoming population would eventually spell doom for their way of life. Anyway, I can't summarize it in a few sentences... just read the book.
2006-09-20 01:08:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jackie Treehorn 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only Country that I can think of, that actually has a formal policy to control the population, is China.
They have well over a Billion people, so in a way, you can't blame them. They do reward Families who stick to the policy but you are not jailed etc. for not following it. You just lose some Government benefits.
2006-09-20 01:31:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by MSJP 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
we currently have 6.5 billion people on a 4 billion people planet. if we keep growing, there will be insufficient food, water, and clean air to support not just human life, but all life.
only gov't can reverse this growth as religion is not going to do anything about it and religion is a major factor in certain areas where the growth is running amok.
2006-09-20 01:11:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by arkie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Imagine this: 1000 new-born baby's to every 1 farmer....who is retiring or losing his farm.
Simply put, there aren't enough resources to go around and the current generation just can't keep up with a population explosion.
2006-09-20 01:01:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Alibi 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are referring to India or China...better ask them. No such thing in the US.
Just a guess but given the high population in those two countries and the limited resources...it is a drama waiting to play itself out.
2006-09-20 01:01:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Government needs to stay out of the bed room and maternity ward. The government has no right to control population. Nazi Germany tried is and look what happened.
2006-09-20 01:01:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by yager19 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why would they want to do that when they're
against birth control?
I thought bush wanted all women bare foot & pregnant.
Wait - make that White women.
If you're talking about the United States, bush wants more
babies to be born. That's who pays for social security for
the previous generation.
It may be too late, social security is presumed to be bankrupt
by 2012.
2006-09-20 01:02:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Calee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋