[saymaListserv] Fwd: Re: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than...

Vmbra at aol.com Vmbra at aol.com
Tue Sep 14 21:47:05 JEST 2004

I like Free's and Russ's responses.  The only consequence of exponential 
growth will be exponential decay at some time in the future.  That's the bad news. 
 The worse news is that the time constant of the decay is likely to be a lot 
shorter than that of the growth. 

Population stabilization and eventual decline are not to be feared.  One way 
or another, the population will stop growing.  We can choose how: through 
rapid deflation via disease, war, or starvation, or through a soft landing by 
controlling fertility.

Janet says we have 40-75 years to deal with the consequences if population 
eventually stops growing worldwide.  At today's rate of change of technology, 
that's forever.  But the goal should be mitigating the transient demographic 
consequences of a distorted population pyramid that could result from 
stabilization, not prevention of decline.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20040914/5d56767c/attachment.html>

More information about the sayma mailing list