No. If and when the population decreases it will not cause the economy to falter dramatically. At one point Meyer basically blames women becoming more educated to the reason why we will suffer. This is obviously just an exaggeration. In reality as stated by Nicholson-Lord overpopulation will not be an issue anymore. There will be more jobs available for everyone which is a huge problem today and that will then reduce the amount of people on welfare. The economy will be able to stay stable and out of large sums of debt.
Reply
Dzialo
9/6/2012 12:43:40 am
try to quote the author and page number to back up your postion.
Reply
Adam Guidarini
9/4/2012 08:20:15 am
No, if we continue to populate the planet as we currently are, then we will be putting more people without the enough jobs to support the people it currently has. Nicholson-Lord stated that with a lower population we will not need to deplete fossil fuels as quickly as we do. If population decreases then we will have a much more stable job market and a more stable economy which are two things that this world needs.
Reply
Anjalee (Angelica) Singh
9/4/2012 11:35:18 am
No, population decline will not threat human welfare as long as they don't fall significantly to a very low rate. As The author of the article stated, agricultural production isn't keeping up with the rising pulsation, and so if birth rates get lower it'll actually be better because then we can better feed everyone. Also, as Michael Meyer said,) we'll have cleaner air and water with less people. Another factor is that densely populated areas, like India, could use a population decline because it's already too crowded. I've been to India a couple of times and the traffic and crowdedness is terrible, even in some rural areas. Countries like that could use falling birth rates and it'll positively affect the welfare of the people.
Reply
Jenny Lee
9/4/2012 12:08:47 pm
Yes, If the population decreases, it will cause the economy to falter. Meyer states that the younger generation will have to provide for the elders who are now living longer. To pay for the elders, the younger people would have to pay more taxes. Also, since the birth rates are decreasing and lifetimes are expanding, this would cause the younger generation to pay for more than just 1 elder.
Reply
Austin Nguyen
9/4/2012 12:18:50 pm
I agree, a smaller population would be better because the world would run more smoothly than if it was over populated. With less people, the world would have less pollution and that would prevent our ozone from getting worse than it is already. In the text, Nicholson-Lord states that with a decline in population, we would not need to use up fossil fuels as fast, we would free up land for other species, and that we would have a increase on national self-sufficiency. Clearly, a decline in population would be great, like said above, we will have a more stable job market and economy.
Reply
Austin Nguyen
9/4/2012 12:20:57 pm
Correction: I agree with Haley, Adam, and Anjalee*
Reply
Ty Teichmann
9/4/2012 01:05:09 pm
Ok, how could Myers possibly say that more people would be better? With less people there wil be less issues facing the over use of fossil fuels, less taxes due to the fact that there will be less people which will require the government to spend less, and the most important reason for less people is that we will, as a globalizing world, will be easier to agree allowing for a more peaceful society. Even at the end of his article, Myers admits that maybe a decreeing population will be beneficial; any aren't that ends up agreeing with the opposing side is not an argument at all.
Reply
Ria Fernandez
9/4/2012 01:07:05 pm
I completely agree with David Nicholson Lord. Any type of environment would be much more stable with "less" people. From the windy city to our own high school, things would be extremely different with half the population of people then there normally is. "Less pollution, less strain on nature systems, greater national self-sufficiency, reduction in fossil-fuel emissions,the freeing up of land for other species and higher-order human uses, such as wilderness" (Nicholson-Lord 243). Generally speaking, the world would be a much cleaner and organized environment. "The fewer, the better".
Reply
Megan Waddell
9/4/2012 01:32:16 pm
No. I agree with Lord and the British population panel when they stated "That its population cannot go on increasing indefinitely". This is true for all countries, if population increases by too much, it will have a negative impact on the quality of life and the environment. I completely agree with Ria,the lower the population, the better.
Reply
Jake Manrrique
9/4/2012 01:46:04 pm
No, because if the world was more populated than it is today, We would be putting excessive strain on resources. With the strain on resources, an environmental change such as a drought would have catastrophic results to the resources and the population. As Thomas Malthus Stated in the text, "it is obvious that the population must ineitably outstrip the food supply and experience famine". This shows that he also believed that if the population were to get too large for the carrying capacity, it would experience a famine when the food systems fail.
Reply
Jake Manrrique
9/4/2012 09:12:39 pm
I agree with Hailey, Adam, Anjalee, Austin, Ty, Ria , and Megan because they all agree that a Smaller population is better than a large one. We may not all agree on why it is better than a larger population but we can all agree that having a larger population would have Ill effects.
Reply
Nick Voss
9/4/2012 01:48:58 pm
Following up on Austin's points, not only would a smaller population be beneficial to the environment, it will make the earth a more enjoyable place. As said by David Nicholson-Lord on page 242, with the birth rate lower, the population decreases and becomes older. Because of the fact that they aren't competing for a job, since there are less people to fill other occupations, everyone has no worries and are laid back. This not only lowers unemployment but allows people to value other things in life like family and friends. Because of the lowering in everyday stressors, such as problems in the workplace, there is no need to drink or participate in any other violent or dangerous actions. With the lowering of violence, crimes also lessen. To summarize, with a lower population, the planet becomes, not only a safer place, but a one where people can slow down and enjoy life itself.
Reply
Nicole Oyewunmi
9/4/2012 02:43:54 pm
Although both authors have valid points, I would have to agree with Meyer. Nicholson-Lord argues that the world would be a better place to live in if the population was lower. How can this be if a lower population means lower economic growth? Without economic growth, government programs can't be afforded. Since most of the elderly can't work, without government programs, they would live in poverty. With lower birth rates, there wouldn't be as many children around for the elderly to rely on. In my opinion, a world in which the elderly live in poverty without children to care for them is a problem. This is why I think, when it comes to population, the more the merrier!
Reply
Nicole Oyewunmi -Correction
9/4/2012 02:48:34 pm
Although both authors have valid points, I would have to agree with Meyer. Nicholson-Lord argues that the world would be a better place to live in if the population was lower. How can this be if a lower population means lower economic growth? Without economic growth, government programs can't be afforded. (Issue 13, 235) Since most of the elderly can't work, without government programs, they would live in poverty. With lower birth rates, there wouldn't be as many children around for the elderly to rely on. In my opinion, a world in which the elderly live in poverty without children to care for them is a problem. This is why I think, when it comes to population, the more the merrier!
Reply
Brett Simpson
9/4/2012 11:18:28 pm
No, a population decline wouldn't hurt, it might actually help humans as a whole. The article stated that the global agricultural production cannot keep up with the growing population. The decline of population would most likely catch up to the agricultural production, thus resulting in less malnourished people globally. I agree with Anjalee that as long as the population doesn't drop derasticaly, it shouldn't do harm. Also a smaller population could result in jobs. If the amount of jobs remains the same, there will be a demand for people to fill the spots. Overall, a small population is beneficial in more ways than not.
Reply
Andrew lee
9/4/2012 11:25:45 pm
With the amazing rate the population is growing at, there soon won't be enough resources to sustain the world anymore. Certainly both sides have great arguments. Sure if there weren't enough people there wouldn't be Econ,ic growth but what's economic growth mean if there's nothing to eat, work for, or even live for if everything is crowded.
Reply
Andrew
9/4/2012 11:27:30 pm
I'm not saying to kill all the babies or anything just monitor what we do and how often we give birth to decrease just a little not drastically.
Reply
Nick Geati
9/4/2012 11:32:06 pm
I both agree and disagree with the article. I feel like population decline could hurt the economy, but at the same time, a few points would be better, such as less crime. At the same time, the more population increases, the better government projects can work. However, with overpopulation, we risk food shortages. In a way, either side has its pros and cons and there is no best decision.
Reply
Kevin Thakkar
9/4/2012 11:32:25 pm
Altough I agree that a smaller population would be beneficial, I can see problems occurring if there's a rapid decrease in population. There wouldn't be enough people who have skills to do certain jobs, and a lot of the population would need to become educated to make up for the fact that we have a lt less people.
Reply
Vincent Ng
9/5/2012 01:00:52 am
No, I believe that if there were lesser human in the world that it would help make the world better. I agree with jake when he said, "if the world was more populated than today, we would be putting extensive strain on resources." if there were less people then there wouldn.t be a need for so many cars. With less cars there would be less air population that would lead to
Reply
Vincent
9/5/2012 01:05:43 am
A world with fresher air like David Nicholson-Lord said on page 234
Reply
Simon Goskowicz
9/5/2012 10:18:39 pm
I disagree with the theory that says when population decline starts, the economy will inevitably stop growing and despite a better enviornment, the quality of life will be lower. I think that a stable population could hold a growing economy together better than a rapidly rising one.
Reply
Zach Anderson
9/5/2012 11:35:42 pm
I believe that population growth is definitely harmful. Having more and more people in the world is causing the need for more energy, food, oil, space, etc. the need for all of this will increase pollution of our atmosphere. Even though growth is going to be harmful, the government can't or shouldn't create laws that plan families because that goes against what many religious people believe in. I also agree with Simon, with a stable population an economy doesn't have the major growths to deal with creating a chance for an economy to thrive.
Reply
Charleen Hwang
9/6/2012 12:06:16 am
No. While there is validity in Meyer's statements, there isn't enough substantial support to his rather exaggerated claims. Nicholson-Lord's argument is much more plausible, though the deline in population would have to be gradual. With a lesser population, a myriad of problems in the world can be helped, if not resolved. Food distribution throughout the world is uneven as it is - what good would it do to have more inhabitants of this sort of system? To have a greater population would only widen the chasm between those in charge of the system and those who are their subjects.
Reply
jim dzialo
9/6/2012 12:54:04 am
Reply
Julian Vining
9/8/2012 09:36:18 am
I believe that population does not effect economy in the long run, the more people the better the economy, however the more people, the less goods like oil and coal will be available. However, in brazil, they make do with sugar cane as fuel, so the energy problem would likely be solved if there wasn't enough to go around
Reply
Leave a Reply.
Author
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.
RSS Feed