Thanks for that reply Dave, i was just throwing it out there because so much, though not all conventional wisdom is wrong, and I just like to test my assumptions.Playing devils advocate.
I wasn't suggesting that it would be a good idea for another billion people to be added to the worlds population, especially at the present level of development. I was suggesting that the worlds carrying capacity isn't so much a fixed number but is relative to technological development, social structures, culture and other factors.
I know that half the world lives in poverty at the moment, but would the removal of half the worlds population make the remaining half affluent? What actually causes poverty and is it simply a question of money or is it more to do with culture and social structures? Is it simply about population density or are there other factors involved? I know it's not that simple but there are many cases of densely populated countries that are quite self sufficient and others that are blessed with many natural advantages that go nowhere.
Why is Europe rich and Asia poor, and out of Asia Japan and Korea rich, Singapore slightly less so, and the rest mostly dirt poor?Comparing say, China and Taiwan, the Taiwanese have a much higher standard of living than the mainland Chinese yet have a higher population density , and have never had a one child policy.
I know about the overfishing, and the immanent collapse of the fisheries. I heard not so long ago that the number of fishing vessels tripled worldwide from 1980 to 3m+ yet the catch has remained constant. That is a worry.
As for population control, the idea seemed to be that countries had to limit childbirth in order to become economically developed, but now the thinking is the reverse is true, and that things like reducing infant mortality have greater importance as people don't have to have 10 kids to get 4 adult children to look after them in old age.
