In a world in which most anything that could seem to keep human populations "in check," is fast fading away, hadn't we better plan to eagerly welcome growth?
bit confused to the relavence of this but farmers should farm to earn money not be given money to farm....maybe get paid a wage and all the crops go into fueling the people (ofc only in a crisis situation)
And as the pop' increases there will be less arable/grazing land available meaning more and more farms closing..perhaps they should all be government owned as the PRIORITY is feeding mankind not making money for old macdonald (that is if you are putting mankind first)..
How much farming can be done with no land?
So the world is growing more urban. Let the planet urbanize with people to whatever extent needed.
It is neither the responsibility of governments to curb natural babymaking, nor to feed all the people. What is the responsibility of government, is to get out of the way, and let the energy producers, and farmers, and miners, and manufacturers, get potentially rich, abundantly supplying all the things that so many people would want and need.
Technology growth is already very much population-driven, and perhaps it's only a matter of time, for vast farmlands to be eventually converted into human residential housing, as the growing human race finds itself having to grow ever denser and vaster over more and more land. But I consider that very good, not bad, as agriculture is becoming quaint and outdated and may ultimately give way to more synthetic ways of producing more high-quality and consistant foods. Already, at least for people with money, the naturally-multiplying human race, increasingly faces the curious prospect of "unlimited" food, not hunger. There is yet another curious "overpopulation" theory, that people have
too much food, which supposedly fuels wild population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. Would the anti-human liberal "environmentalist" over-educated pagans, or whoever, please make up their minds which phony crises to worry us about? Too little or too much food? Too much ozone on the ground, too little up high? Seems like one problem might cancel the other out? I think population phobics tend to fear that humans will too readily solve too many problems, and that the real prospect might ultimately be global overcrowding.
I very much believe that feeding mankind is an obvious priority, and I do not at all believe in imposing any form of population "control" upon humans. In the past, people kept depopulating the countryside to move to the opportunity, jobs, excitement, crowds of the big city. Not exactly the best form of growth, as I would rather see the cities grow from the natural increase of all the people already in them, not by sucking population out of surrounding countrysides in search of better jobs. Why can't more jobs be made somehow more portable, so that people may have the option of staying on their traditional or comfortable lands? Anyway, I would love to see people move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities, as there gets to be so many of us.
Contrary to popular myth, wars appear to do little or nothing towards "controlling" natural human population growth. We add another 70 or 80 million people to the planet, each year. Fewer people than that, died in both WW1 and WW2? In most any major disaster, population rebounds to cover all the numbers of people lost, in a matter of just a few hours or days. Each day, another 211,000 people. Each year, nearly another Mexico of people. Every 15 years, another India of people. Fortunately, the world is still quite a big place, and not everybody is born in the same places. By expecting all nations to properly explore how they may best naturally grow denser with people, the planet can easily be made to hold lots more people, well into the forseeable future.
That there is now so many of us humans alive, is yet all the more practical and moral reason, why people should want to put people first. Keep the babies right on coming. I believe most all parents, have plenty good enough reasons to enjoy having as many children as they are having. I don't believe humans were designed to use any form of "birth control," and to avoid the side-effects of Big Pharm's shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons, would obviously have to imply that continued "traditionally very large" families would/should be just the normal and natural and proper thing. Feed people and they multiply all the more? So much the better, as more and more people would be glad to experience life.
