|
By: Tel a reply to Children of Men: The world in 2053?by Tel on Jul 24, 2008 - 03:02 AM read 39 times Source: http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/?p=1766#comment-154423 |
|
You might want to study the work of Charles Darwin and perhaps also note that it took almost the entire human history to get to 1 billion people, then took two hundred years to reach 6 billion. I’m quite sure that this “falling-off-a-cliff effect from which it would be nearly impossible to recover” is completely irrelevant on a global scale.
For a long time, the cities of Britain were making a net loss in population (i.e. eating people) while the countryside was producing a net surplus (large numbers of whom would move to the cities) but the system as a whole still operated and the cities still expanded.
Jaclyn: As Don points out, birth rates have decreased so far below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per person that the population is shrinking too rapidly. This becomes a concern when our social welfare system is contingent on the younger, working population supporting an older, retired population. It places a large burden on the Net Generation.
It is going to place a much larger burden on those who believe that the Net Generation is under some obligation to support them and who also seem to believe that our economic system has no ability to “correct” for such imbalances.
Featured
Author Profile
Subscribe
Feed for nGenera Community:
Public 
Secure
Why subscribe? What is RSS?