The analysis is based on United Nations estimates that predict there could be 11 billion people by 2100 (Science, doi.org/vvk). These estimates assume continued high birth rates in Africa, with Europe and China tending towards about two children per woman.
The problem is the strong momentum from past high birth rates, which would sustain population size even under Bradshaw and Brook's extreme scenarios. The global baby boom of the last four decades of the 20th century means there is a large generation of women who will be fertile for decades to come.
"Humanity has now exceeded the planet's carrying capacity," says Bradshaw. "The demographic momentum of the current human population certainly precludes massive [population] declines in the next few decades."
Whether it's a natural decline, a strict policy or a disastrous plague, none of these population drops would be enough to fix environmental problems like climate change. The sticking point instead lies in our high consumption of natural resources.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429934.100-a-killer-plague-wouldnt-save-the-planet-from-us.html#.VF5F_PnF9VZ
Maybe this is why the Book of Revelation predicts massive reductions in the human population, because nothing else can possibly save the Earth:
By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
Revelation 9:18 KJV
Or maybe not, since the other plagues and calamities predicted in the Book of Revelation would cause more environmental damage than could be balanced by the positive impact of population reduction.
So we have a real dilemma: can neither science nor religion save us?
Merde!
No comments:
Post a Comment