Why is it always assumed that population growth has to be exponential? Why must the specter of Malthusianism still haunt us?
Malthusianism is founded on assumptions of people's choices based on their standard of living - it's not a sure thing that those assumptions are valid. Out of curiosity, OH, how old are you? I know that they were teaching about the dangers of overpopulation based on exponential growth models back in the '60s and '70s. I don't know if they still teach it. I don't think I was ever taught about the possibility and dangers of overpopulation in my public schooling.
People don't have kids in the numbers that they used to for a variety of reasons, but it's a trend that you see in most developed nations like the US and Japan. I believe it was Walter Greiling who predicted in the 1950s that we would eventually hit a peak of 9 billion in the 21st century and then stop growing - (this idea assumes a readjustment of the third world nations). He could be correct. If he is, then your idea of exponential growth is bunk. Rather than an exponential curve, it would be a logistic curve.
Develop the economy in a third world nation and heighten people's standard of living and empower women (give women equal rights to men with ready access to birth control, and allow them to work and support themselves if they choose) and I think you'll eventually see a declining birth rate.
|