(I'm waiting for Eagle to quote that "go forth and multiple" command...)
The world population is about 6-7 billion right now. It doubled between 1960 and 2000 (40 years) and tripled between 1927 and 2000 (73 years). There are estimates that the earth can only support 18 billion people based on the amount of arable land and so forth. The planet cannot support another tripling.
With no plans to leave any offspring behind, I'm actually not too worried about this. But it's an obvious problem that is only going to keep getting worse until population growth is brought under control. I think it is a far more immediate threat than running out of oil or flooding from global warming!
I actually chuckled when I read that first comment.
I don't dispute the issue of overpopulation. I'm just not sure if that is a good argument for not having children in a developed or industrialized country.Still waiting on what the proposed solution to overpopulation is.
By the way the comment that
Replacement rate in the modern world is about 2.1 children per set of parents.
is completely false. It was a generalization and lacked data. It also was meant in my opinion as a form of bullying the poster of the comment - Savarel. Unless a majority of countries in Europe, Japan, and S. Korea (and throw in Canada) are not considered modern. Can we agree?
And Savarel is correct if no individuals decided to have children or if there were a disaster that prevented reproduction that eventually the population would not only be unsustainable but we would in fact become extinct. Can we agree?
The issue is not in the "modern world" or industrialized countries. The issue is in the developing (India population is 1.2 billion people and there are 54 births in India a minute; while China is an exception is that what it's going to take?) and underdeveloped world (some of S. America, a majority of Africa, and parts of Asia).