No offense, but I've never heard of that theory before, do you have a source? Population control and stabilization seems to be a reoccurring theme of your posts. Did you know this is already happening across the world? People are having fewer children because of advances in medicine and science, among other reasons. It seems to me that following your view could actually increase population as child mortality increases, people would have more children fearing some would die of sickness or infection.
I just read about it in the book Changes In The Land for my American Environmental History class. It was one of the pioneering books in the field of environmental history. How are there fewer children now? And I don't know that that's how it would play out that people would end up having more kids. If you look at tribes in Tanzania, they have a very sustainable population in which there aren't too many children.
It is a fact that more developed (i.e. more medically advanced) countries have a lower birth rate: (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-popul...) As we gain more technological freedom to control our own fertility, and as having children becomes a bigger economic disadvantage, the population growth rate has slowed considerably in countries with access to medicine. The countries that do not have advanced medicine available to the public - China, India, other developing countries - are the ones with enormous population booms that are damaging to the planet. Our ability to remain fertile at any time of year due to food production is greatly offset by our ability to control our birth rates. In fact, if you're concerned about our longevity, our replacement rate (the rate at which old people die and new people are born) is extremely tight, last I've heard, I'm not sure what the ratio is at now. I find it totally untenable to blame medicine for world overpopulation or "giving the middle finger to nature" when it's provable that medicine is a direct, causal link to population growth slowing.
I'm not going to pretend you don't have incredible points, because you do. To be honest, I'm not sound enough in my belief to know how to respond to this. Let me think about this some and then I'll get back to you once I've thought it out.
That's fair. I've definitely gotten a closer look at my beliefs -- especially the last point -- as a result of this conversation as well, and it's always worthwhile if you can get a chance to examine your thoughts from all angles.
Oh yes I definitely agree. The beauty of discussion is immense.