What would the population of earth be if we saved the lives of the children in 3rd world countries since 1970

Question

I mean, we are the most generous country on the planet and for many years, CARE and FEED THE CHILDREN,et al have been asking for money to save the dying children in third world countries. I realize it's a sad, sick, disheartening situation, but the money we spend would be better applied to bettering our own homeless, esp. Katrina victims, instead of those abroad. So I just gotta sak, wouldn't the planet be severely overpopulated if we HAD saved all the dying in the other countries? In lieu of global warming, wouldn't that also be worse? Wouldn't disease be even more prevalent if we were so overcrowded? Ask yourself, what would the population of the planet be if we all WERE to pull together and save all those poor little kids ever since they started to air those commercials, or even just save the ones from 1970 to date. So why do they even bother if it such a negative impact on life as a whole on the entire planet. Wouldn't their efforts doom us all if we listened?

Answer 1

Birth rates have a strong correlation with infant mortality. If we really saved the lives of all children born in 3rd world countries since 1970, our world population today would likely be much lower than it is.

One of the strongest reasons compelling people to have kids is the risk of kids dying. Its a strange paradox of humankind, but its true.

This factor also influences people in the 1st world, and it partially explains post-war baby booms, as well as increased pregnancies during wartime.

Answer 2

What a disgusting view.

I suppose you think the world would be better off if you hadn't been immunized and had died at age 3?

Most likely, as the countries had begun to be more populated, and especially as infant mortality went down, people wouldn't have as many kids.

If the only way to have a reasonable chance of having any child survive you is to have eight kids, that's what you'll do.

If most of your kids have a great chance of making it to adult-hood and even old age, you have fewer kids.

That's what birth control use is beginning to look like (with some time lags).

No, whiping out disease does NOT make disease more prevalent.

So, fortunately, both humanity and practicality all suggest that letting people suffer and die needlessly is NOT a good thing to do.

BTW, we've given a very tiny amount of money to save lives, compared to the money we've spent committing mass murder (not to mention theft). Why don't you see any of THAT money as a waste that could have been better spent saving lives, rather than the little bit of money we've spent saving lives being the only wasted money?

You don't think it's a waste that we've given weaponry (trillions of dollars worth for DEATH) to nearly every country on Earth, but you DO thinks it's a waste to have immunized and fed people (for a few billion dollars)?

Answer 3

Good for you to have the courage to ask this question and I hope you withstand all the irrationalists' flamings you will get.

If it weren't for the greed of the structures that profit from population growth, aid would be tied to birth control in all cases.

Answer 4

About eight billion I believe, and if we include the aborted lives I would hazard a guess of about nine and a half billion.
Just an educated guess, we really don't know.