Yes, that is not enough information. It doesn't even MENTION the reduction in reproduction rate. Nor does it address the problems related to how medicine is delivered to individuals throughout the world. Even in the USA we have increasing numbers of babies born with STDs that require no more than a cheap shot to fix. The solution was easily available, but beyond the care that we offer poor people in the US "sun belt". Now our move is to cut availability of Medicaid. The world population growth rate is certainly still positive, but it is slowing. And, improving medical science isn't going to reverse that.
That is a nonsensical claim. One of the nations with the highest standards of living is the UAE, and they average family households of 6.3 people. However, Japan has always had a low family household size. In fact, the only time it ever exceeded that of the US was in the 1920s when it hit a record high of 5.3 per household and the US it was 4.3. I would say that culture had much more of an impact than standard of living. However, higher standards of living do tend to allow more children to reach adulthood. And kindly tell us, exactly how many nations have moved up from third world conditions into higher ones to validate that conjecture?
It is? https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ Sure as hell does not look that way to me. It is still on a sharp upward slope and is barely even slowing.
That has not changed the fact that procreation rate is moving lower in the USA, and throughout most of the world. Countries see that as a serious problem, as it is leading to a bulge of old people to support by fewer people enabling the economy. South Korea, Singapore, France, Australia, Canada, Russia, and Poland have all offered “baby bonuses” per child. China has been trying, too. As for Japan: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/asia...saw 799,728 births,1.5 million births in 1982. I agree that life saving modern medicine works against this trend. But, the reality is that it is NOT enough to counter the real issues that drive population.
The world population growth rate in 1963 was 2.1% The world population growth rate has moved steadily down from there. https://www.google.com/search?q=wor...rome..69i57.8324j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/population-growth-rate https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW The UN projects that the world population will grow to about 10.3 billion before the end of the century. Then, unless there is some new factor, the world population will gradually decline.
Children who are born may be more likely to reach adulthood, especially if they actually have access to modern medicine (unlike the less than full access available to the poor in America). But, the larger factor is that people are choosing to give birth to fewer and fewer children. One of the issues is probably the cost of children. The average cost for a middle-income family in the U.S. is $245,340––over $4,000 more than last year's average. As if that wasn't a stark enough contrast, consider the cost of raising a child in 1950––a mere $25,230 (about $198,560 factoring in inflation, still a significantly smaller figure). This astronomical figure includes the cost for housing, childcare, education, food, transportation, health care and clothing. Above is from: https://www.mommynearest.com/article/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child That site references a government study.
I stated that as a starting point, recognizing growth at a particular year. From there, things have steadily changed toward slower and slower growth, led by a decreasing procreation rate. This was in rebuttal to your claim that modern medicine is powering population increase.
What you claim is almost nonsensical. Like claiming the US population is shrinking, or that more people are dying than are being born. Easily proven wrong, but you insist you are correct. Just like almost anything else you claim. I present hard facts, you just spout off on whatever nonsense you believe. But please, give us some actual data that explains the drastic decrease in infant mortality and survival of mothers that has nothing to do with modern medicine. In other words, show us some facts, or ST U. I swear, you are absolutely trollish, as you never actually present anything like evidence, and half the time what you say is almost insane.
I cited supporting info from well respected sites. And, no, I did NOT claim what you keep pretending I have said. In fact, I've never said anything about what you chose to put in bold in your post. I'd point out that I have cited on the population issue and I haven't seen you do that.
Right, because the lowering of mortality rates has absolutely nothing with the population explosion. I'm done, again.
You know that the rate of increase in population has been dropping world wide for decades, and to an extent that has a good number of countries worried about their economic future. Given that knowledge, it's clear that progress in medicine keeping people alive is being overwhelmed by other factors.
I remember once posting the fact that I had bought a commercial toilet to replace the water saving one I had in one bathroom. The problem is that the water saving toilet used more water because two flushes were required and, of course, that also wasted time. The post was met with criticism and threats that I had broken a law that was important to the environment. Of course it was the law itself that was messing with the environment. The people who attacked me didn't understand that there was and never has been insufficient water here in the great lakes area. This area is not a desert. I could flush endlessly and not affect the water table since all the water eventually reaches the water table again. There is a lack of common sense among environmentalists. I want a clean environment like everyone else but it makes no sense to attack me for replacing a toilet that didn't work very well and that was worse environmentally than the replacement. They want to take gas stoves, toilet paper and light bulbs as well. Anybody else just want to be left alone?
I'm not worried about your toilet, but I think the savings comes because it's called "#1" for a reason - and a lot of water gets made up there. I've never heard the toilet paper one. LED lights are perfectly good, last way longer than incandescent and save on your electricity bill. I hate the point of sale confusion, but the result is clearly better. I'm about to remove my gas stove. I like cooking on it, but I don't like burning gas in my house, plus it is a pollution issue. Induction is just plain better, though I think one would have to get a torch to char peppers, or whatever.
Huh? The issue is freedom and government reducing it. Government wants people to buy bidets and stop using toilet paper. We have way way way too much government. Personal choices are fine. Don't let government tell you how to live your life.
Of course, the loonies never want to mention that most of the "green" light solutions are actually toxic. The old incandescent lights used copper, glass, carbon and tungsten. And a lot of the replacements used now are fluorescent, which use mercury and other dangerous materials that are an environmental hazard. The same with LED, which have lead, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals and elements. And while most on the green side are pushing them saying the amounts are small, we dispose of over 2 billion of these each year. The amount of lead in gasoline was small also, but it was the total amount used that became the ticking time bomb that got it banned. I believe that someday in the future our descendants are going to be trying to look back and wonder what in the hell we were thinking.
Ok, I don't get your bidet argument. I don't know about any bidet legislation other than building codes to ensure electrical safety and backflow issues. Besides, many use at least some paper to dry off, though good ones don't leave you needing that. No single individual can possibly know all the factors that go into living in close proximity and come to conclusions that work for the local population - or the nation or the world, for that matter. Climate change and water management are clear cases of that. Another such area where individual opinions get overridden due to expert knowledge is national defense. I agree with Eisenhower. But, even though the gov charges me a LOT for their preposterous solution, I only get my vote. Another is that I like religious freedom, but I don't want my neighbor having weekly naked pit roasts in their front yard, or arguing that our laws don't apply to them due to some crazy religious ideas they might concoct.
Sorry I view this sort of thing as way beyond the appropriate role for federal government. I'm more amenable to state or local government doing this sort of thing but not the Feds. I value freedom above all else except for health and family. Sadly, I appear to be in a minority.
Our water issues cross state lines. And, they certainly are NOT within the political boundaries of local government.
Lead was added to gasoline, because the automobile industry wanted to make it easier to cause gasoline to burn rather than explode in a pressurized cylinder. This is a case of government facilitating a corporate solution.
One of the enumerated roles for federal government in the constitution is to resolve interstate disputes. The states need to resolve it or the federal government will resolve it for them. That isn't the same thing as federal government doing what should be done by the states. Federal government has no business facilitating corporations.
Leaded gasoline came from the need for a US wide agreement on a fuel that auto manufacturers could trust in designing engines. That was a complex issue - one where various constituencies did not agree. There is no possibility that it could be resolved by the 50 states, the auto manufacturers, the fuel manufacturers and the rest who have interests. The same goes for water rights. CA and other downstream states can not control how water is managed up stream. There has to be agreement with all the states involved in sources such as the Colorado River - both in management of volume and purity. In fact, as climate changes, the rules also have to change - right at times when supply doesn't even come close to demand. Plus, this problem absolutely does involve corporate interests as well as state and local interests. Solutions impact hydro power, recreation, and other uses - not just drinking water and agriculture. In fact, solutions have to include water that crosses national boundaries, as there are cases of that both north and south.
You must have missed my prior post. I explained that the constitution requires federal government to resolve interstate disputes.
