Comments on: Carrying Capacity Reached: The Need for Population Stability

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:56:59 +0000

There are a lot of things we can do on a macro-level to encourage a stable population. First and foremost is education and access to birth control methods. Add to that restructuring our tax incentives to discourage overly large families (we can set this to whatever we like, 2, 3, 5 children). My thought on this point is that we simply remove the tax breaks on each kid past number 3, for example. Also, we can subsidize birth control methods and vasectomy procedures for those who want it but can’t afford it.

What ideas do you have? It is obviously a sensitive topic, but one that needs to be addressed.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:52:18 +0000

Well, that is a great question. It is not a static number. It is dependent on a number of variables – climate, farming yields, distribution of food/water/wealth, technology. There are a lot of indicators that show that we have reached/exceeded our capacity, though. The largest one is climate change.

By: Trecia

Trecia — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:02:26 +0000

what is the earth’s carrying capacity and is this value reached?

By: alisa

alisa — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:37:05 +0000

hay, just a few questions:) Is there a way to stabilize human population growth without orbortion amd diseases to kill people i find it ver cruel and wrong. No offense if you think diiferent but i dont want to keep people from havin kids either.So what do you think would be a good idea Joshua?

By: The Real Population Question

The Real Population Question — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:41:07 +0000

[...] written before about population. This is a dodgy issue surrounded by misconceptions, fear and contention. It is an easy topic to [...]

By: Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:48:45 +0000

Lisa,

Thanks for the great question! I think part of your question moves towards another very important point: growth of consumption is as much, if not more, of a problem than population growth. In actuality, both are serious issues. Some amount of growth of material wealth in many “developing countries” is necessary in order to break free of what Keynes called the “economic problem,” or what I always associate with the first two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. After that point more material wealth doesn’t actually improve well-being.

However, if consumption growth continues it will wreck the planet. At the same time, continued population growth, on the macro-level, will always bring about the same result. Both consumption and population growth need to be stabilized. When you think about the two together you might reach the conclusion that population growth in the “developed” countries is more impactful to the planet and the rest of us than developing countries, because our consumption is so much higher. In truth, all life is equally important and it is a morally reprehensibly, I think, to value one live more or less based on something like possible consumption.

Does that help answer your question?

Cheers,
Joshua

well,