Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vman455
Wait, what "progress" on population?
|
Net global population growth rate has reduced (slowed) to ~1/2 of the rate of growth it was .. including a ~30% increase in life expectancy over the same time period .. If not for the increased life expectancy .. the rate of growth would have been about ~1/4 of the rate is was previously .. this well documented slowing is progress in the correct direction.
Weather it is a 'fast enough' rate of progress .. or weather this type of progress will continue 'long enough' ... only time will tell.
- - - - - - - -
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P-Hack
I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
I never passed judgement on how fast or slow it should have been, nor claimed to be anything more than an observer.
|
I'm confused!
If you didn't judge conflict to achieved any faster progress than the rate we have already seen in the last ~60 years ... why would you prefer conflict????
For example:
In the last ~40 years .. reduced growth rate as resulted in about ~2 Billion less people today ... if instead the growth rate had not reduced .. and conflict was used instead to remove / kill the same ~2 Billion people .. we would still either way have the same total number of people today .. I don't see how the conflict method (if not being judged preferentially faster) .. is any better .. if anything it seems vastly inferior to the reducing growth rate we have been doing instead.
It seemed to me (my interpretation of your posts);
You had passed judgement on the rate of progress .. you decided the rate of progress in the last ~60 years was too slow .. and you wanted a 'faster' rate of progress .. your chosen method was conflict .... Thus why I ask ... How fast does the non-conflict progress have to be , to satisfy you ?
FYI ... This interpretation of mine (of your posts) was also based on your previous comments when we last discussed human population growth rate last year.
For example:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P-Hack
well the population is still growing, and aside from hockey stick type theories, there isn't much reason to think that it will stop in time
|
"stop in time" ... really strongly read to me that a major part of your objection is you judging that the progress of the last ~60 years has not been fast enough .. thus my question now ... How fast is fast enough to satisfy you ?
If the rates are the same .. I don't see how conflict is a better answer ??