Should world population, (growth), be controlled?

Question

Like practices in China, where they can only have one child, there is a population problem. Humanity is growing at a frightening rate. What are your opinions? Please answer in essay form if possible.

Answer 1

Population follows a logistics curve (as opposed to a logarithmic curve as most people think). A logistic curve accelerates at the beginning, but at some point hits what's called an inflection point (which is halfway towards the maximum population) where growth begins to decelerate. According to the UN, world population hit an inflection point in the late 1990's when the population was approximately 6 billion. This means that, if the current trend continues, the world population should peter out at around 12 billion. Given that the vast majority of the planet is still uninhabited, there is plenty of room to sustainably support that many people. It's therefore unnecessary to forcefully control population using the methods that China does.

Answer 2

Humanity is NOT growing at a frightening rate. The long term population grow rate is determined by the fertility rate of women. A fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman will result in zero population growth. The fertility rate for countries is shown at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png
Only a few countries outside of Africa have a long term problems with population growth. The world population is expected to peak at about 10 billion in 2050 and then start to decline, The existing programs to reduce fertility have been shown to work without the need for controls like China.

It is always a good idea to collect facts before forming an opinion.

Answer 3

lol "please answer in essay form" yes we know it's an assignment...lol

ok here's an outline of an essay you can write b/c I really don't have time to write an essay.

Paragraph 1 --> introduction, include facts about population growth and hypotheses about what might happen to the earth if it continues at this rate.
Paragraph 2 --> pros --> environment, economy, jobs, more resources, less crime, etc.
Pargraph 3 --> cons --> limits families, promotes abortions of unwanted sexes, less money going into the economy, sexism (people will prefer one sex over another), also maybe add that the boy to girl ratio will be disparate
Paragraph 4 --> conclusion --> "All in all, population control's benefits do not outweigh it's cons...etc, etc...recap what you put in paragraphs 2 and 3 and then end with "this is an issue that should likely be addressed in 30 years or so when population and environmental issues are more prevelant"

Answer 4

you're best to complication yet examine over what "i'm the solar" published because of the fact, apart from being an optimist, he's lifeless best: "Overpopulation is a self-regulating equipment. whilst there is too a lot of people, a million/2 of them starve to death." in my opinion, i'm confident we are on the verge of a classic "dieoff" experience, it relatively is to assert an excellent involuntary help in inhabitants. the undertaking is that the huge inhabitants of the reducing-part became in basic terms made possible with the help of modern agriculture it relatively is punctiliously dependant on a mushy furnish of fossil gas (a million). modern agriculture makes use of an known of ten energy of fossil gas capability for each calorie of nutrients it produces (2). The fertilizer needed for the huge crop yields is created from organic gas. The fleets of tractors and combines run on gas. Even the insecticides are partly petroleum-based. The transportation community that incorporates the uncooked nutrients to processing and the processed nutrients to us runs on a sea of gas. If and whilst all this fossil gas will become too costly to apply for those applications, then modern civilization is over. an excellent dieoff will inevitably initiate and proceed until eventually the inhabitants has crashed to a level which could be supported without modern agriculture (3, 4). the main important style of folk who can possibly be supported with the help of pre-commercial agriculture is approximately 500 million, and when I say "possibly", what I mean is that it relatively is a real stretch. best now there is someplace between six and 7 billion people on the planet. a number of those "extra" people are going to die; there is not any way it is prevented. The discern of 500 million assumes that that maximum folk of those people are retrained interior the talents of classic (ie, pre-commercial) agriculture. It additionally assumes there is not any considerable war(s) interior the subsequent 50 years related to using WMDs. the two one among those assumptions are relatively effective and subsequently probable lifeless incorrect. this is super you're questioning approximately this, however the sole question that quite concerns is whether or no longer you and the people you care approximately are going to be between the survivors of what's coming....

Answer 5

The population is controlled.

Its called Famine, Plague, and War...

The higher the population; the more frequent those become...

Answer 6

IT IS NOT SO EASY
THIS ANSWER IS YES BUT NOT FOR EVERYBODY