Monday, December 23, 2013

More on Populations

Wow, there was actually a reaction to yesterday's blog post.  Craziness.

Like I said yesterday, the inevitable population drop worries me more than it should.  It is almost certainly decades away at this point.  Still, I cannot shake the dread that humanity is going to do a poor job with the population drop, just like it has done a poor job with the population explosion of the 1900's.

For those of you who are interested in population drops, keep an eye on Japan in the future.  Their population is currently dropping at a slow rate, which is expected to increase as time goes on. Not helping the situation is the fact that Japan's birth rate is at a record low.

So here's a question.  Is the population going to eventually level itself out?  In the future, will there ever be a situation where the number of deaths per year is exactly equal to the number of births per year?  Alternately, will we ever have a fertility rate that is the ideal 2 children per every woman?  (That's the ideal, because it gives you one child to replace the father and one child to replace the mother.)


Anonymous said...

You still haven't explained WHY this worries you so much. Obviously in some ways it is worrying, I'm not denying that, but I would like to hear your reasons.

Anonymous said...

You're over exaggerating the issue. The Earth's population is not going to reach this rapid decrease you describe for a very long while. Not a couple of decades like you think. Who are you hearing this from? People who say the Earth is 6000 years old? Get a grip, man.

Anonymous said...

Lol, the world IS 6000 years old -if you add up all the time recorded in the bible, and then pick up from where it finishes until now, you get about 6000 years.

Don't forget that the Bible begins at the creation!

Daniella said...

Guuuuuuyyzz, be nice to Michael!

Would you like YOUR opinions to be phoo-pooed?
At least Michael has the guts to post them online, -but just 'cause he's braver than you doesn't give to the right to troll!

Anonymous said...

*channels anne robinson*

You ... are the weakest link, goodbye.

Anonymous said...

Daniella, if you haven't noticed, a lot of comments are getting shit on. He put it out there to be judged, so let it be judged. So you've never criticized any opinion made public, I take it? Also, trolling does not mean a disagreement, debate, fight, etc. Search urban dictionary, you ignorant pleb.

Anonymous said...

Lol @ anon12:54

You're a few years off there...............

Anonymous said...

I'm still laughing at anyone who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old. It is actually 4.54 billion years old (seriously, google it.) The Bible isn't exactly the most reliable source for scientific data...try using things such as geochronology, radiometric dating, absolute dating, and relative dating.

Also, the reason most people believe the earth is 6,000 years old is because of an Irish bishop back in the 17th century, who took the geneologies from Genesis, assuming they were complete, and added everything up. Let's just say there were a few problems with his theory.

1. (1 Chronicles 16:15)(Psalm 105:8)(Exodus 20:6)(Deuteronomy 5:10) and (Deuteronomy 7:9) all state that God gave the covenant to 1,000 generations. Unless each of those generations lasted 6 years in length, humanity has been around much longer than 6,000 years. Try 40,000 or more.

2. We assume the days of creation follow 24-hour schedules, but this proves not to be the case. In (Genesis 1:11-12) it states that God didn't just create a world with plants, he created seeds and planted those. You can tell this from the word "sprout". The hebrew word "dasha" also tells us that God used processes similar to what we see on earth today. Plants take much longer to germinate than 24 hours.

There are at least two more reasons I'd like to state, but for the sake of being brief, I will stop here.