Source: The Independent
Date Published: Oct, 26 2014
Professor Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide and Professor Barry Brook of the University of Tasmania who are two renown ecologists that usually study the wild animal populations state that the number of people on Earth today present a daunting problem for sustainable living on Earth in the 22nd century and so on. Various measurements have been taking in account to try to reduce population. A one child policy for the whole world would still keep the population at 7 billion. Not even a catastrophe like a huge disaster or a world war III can even stop the growth. So far, there aren't any specific limiting factors to the humans yet. Professor Bradshaw says that the human population growth today "is like a race car traveling at 150 miles per hour." The population is expected to be at 9 billion people by 2050 and 25 billion by 2100. Anyways, fertility control in rapid growing areas will eventually have an impact on reducing the pressure on limited resources leading to more resources for the booming population. Overall, there isn't any quick solution in reducing the population. But there is potential to see some positive side effects in population control.
This article relates to our unit of ecology in terms of population growth. Population growth has been rising so exponentially ever since the 20th century. The population could even go up to 9 billion in 2050 and 21 billion in 2100. The possible ways of trying to reduce the population mentioned in this article have no possible way to reduce the large human population. In class, we discussed that human population has been rapidly growing since less wars and technology like medicines have improved to the degree that can sustain longer lives to humans. That way, there aren't many limiting factors for humans to be concerned of. Since a catastrophic event nor a one child policy can stop population growth, fertility control is one way that can gradually sustain a large human population on Earth. There is no imminent solution to this growing population issue.
Is the population growth expected to plateau anytime soon? If not, would disease be a more likely population cutter, or natural disaster?
ReplyDeleteThere have been some recent topics stating that the world population could plateau by 2070. According to Geek (http://www.geek.com/science/the-education-effect-global-population-to-plateau-by-2070-1607645/) the UN reports, the population is expected to go up to 9.4 billion and then fall to 9 billion by 2100. There isn't any disease that could reduce population as of now.
DeleteWhat measures are being taken to limit population growth? I know you mentioned fertility control in rapidly growing areas, but can you expand on that point? What controversies are associated with population control methods?
ReplyDeleteThere are some interesting ways to see what measures can limit population growth. According to hee Independent(http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/humanitys-inexorable-population-growth-is-so-rapid-that-even-global-catastrophe-wouldnt-stop-it-9821601.html) there are some catastrophic events like a world war III that are taken as measures in limiting population growth. That castastrophe is very unlikely to reduce the rapid growing world's population. Fertility control is a method used to prevent pregnancy in sexually active women according to Medicine.Net.com (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53351). This looks like a way that people are using to try reducing our population. I couldn't find exact answers to your question of controversies but I could think of some controversies with some population control methods. One is with vaccines. People think that vaccines are to increase population, but it actually decreases population since it doesn't make women want to reproduce more babies in which many of them will be protected by vaccines. Also, I could think of people saying a huge nuclear war doing so. But it actually doesn't since human production still is growing fast. .
Delete