? For years that has been a hypothetical question, posed to suggest an affirmative answer. Fewer people, it was claimed, would mean less depredation of natural resources, less urban overcrowding, more room for other species to stretch their legs. Mankind was a parasite, a blight, and overpopulation a disease. Fewer people would mean a better Earth.
More people also means more consumers and more taxpayers. More consumers to pay for the goods and services of private sector workers. More taxpayers to pay for, among other things, benefits for the elderly and infirm. is no longer a hypothetical or rhetorical question. It is, it seems, a question squarely presented, or just about to be presented, by reality.below the point needed to keep population constant,” Greg Ip and Janet Adamy write in theThe global replacement rate, they point out, is 2.
As the technology historian Vaclav Smil points out, the discovery in 1908 of the Haber-Bosch process for producing synthetic ammonia has led to food production that can feed the world’s current billions and many more. Thomas Malthus, who in 1800 said that any population increase would result in famine and disease, is dead.
These countries, Eberstadt writes, “will find it harder to generate economic growth, accumulate investments, and build wealth to fund their safety nets, and to mobilize their armed forces.” China may not be able to amass huge armies to overcome the U.S. and its allies as it did in Korea in 1950. But Japan and South Korea will not be able to raise troops in numbers they once did.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: fox5ny - 🏆 587. / 51 Read more »
Source: ABC7NY - 🏆 592. / 51 Read more »
Source: abc7newsbayarea - 🏆 529. / 51 Read more »
Source: NBCNewsHealth - 🏆 707. / 51 Read more »
Source: KSLcom - 🏆 549. / 51 Read more »
Source: adndotcom - 🏆 293. / 63 Read more »