Exactly. It is already happening.
Unfortunately the greed of international capitalists who want more customers and governments who want more taxpayers mean that the West never addresses the population problem.
A complete change in welfare structure is require to discourage the poor from reproducing. Foreign aid should always be linked to birth control policies and the current policy of cheap AIDS drugs for Africa should be ended at once.
By reducing the world population by about 50%, environmental problems will be almost non-existent and much stress will be removed from people's lives.
2006-12-29 23:34:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Clive 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Cant be answered. You cannot say for sure what role culture will play on birth rate. So what if Brittian has the same population, they are not a standard society to base things off. Pagreen didn't think through his answer because over populated doesn't just mean you run out of food. The world has never dealt with this so NO ONE can say one way or the other.
2006-12-30 06:57:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by intrepid 225 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
there's a weird theory on this .
some say that with a population increase of enough magnitude the resources would shift toward resolving the problem and it would even out to about the same .
it would be possible to hit a critical mass ie: a population that's so big it just cannot be sustained but other factors would weigh in before that critical mass came into effect.
so in effect
No.
2006-12-30 06:54:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by stronger_than_satan1 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wonder. The places where starvation is most prevalent is not in our country. Definitely they would. Considering the way the US allows immigrants now... I think the US would be overpopulated. If everyone was spread out. I don't think it would be overpopulated because there are people dying from disasters and catastrophes also. If it were to become overpopulated, I think it would take a long time.
2006-12-30 06:49:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Spesh 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
wow, thats just wrong. people shld not die from starvation. thats like asking, if they find a cure for cancer, wld the world be over populated? gads!! but ethical aside, no. it wld level out.
besides we have more than enough food, the problem is getting it into the hands of people that need it, no roads or easy means of transportation, not to mention the greedy dictators who don't give it out once received. need more volunteers, money to pay for the shipping and distribution expense, which usually cost more than the food.
2006-12-30 06:50:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by bb 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. Once a population has enough to eat, the population levels out. Read your Malthus and his studies on population. We aren't starving to death in the UK and, apart from recent immigration from EU countries, the population has remained stable for some time.
2006-12-30 06:46:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
If the world became over populated then world starvation would not be a thing of the past would it??
For God sake think through your arguments or if you are unable to then apply for a brain transplant!
2006-12-30 06:48:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
No - it doesn't work like that.
The more developed a country becomes (i.e. the richer a country becomes) the fewer children are born to each woman.
In Western Europe we now have fewer than 2 children born to each woman.
So really, if we made everyone richer, the world population would start to decrease.
2006-12-30 06:47:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by mcfifi 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am sure if everyone was eating as they should be tehy would then also be more advanced that living in huts etc & then would want more land, cattle blah blah blah & there would be more small civic type wars & fighting than now so even more would die.
2006-12-30 06:49:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by MrBret 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If scientists solve the problem of starvation they can also solve the problem of producing the food needed.
2006-12-30 07:22:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by burning brightly 7
·
0⤊
1⤋