I am not just suggesting it I am asserting it is true that rising incomes lead to reduced birth rates. See the graph I made in post #98 in support of this claim.
CatWhat Is the Difference Between GDP Per Capita and Per Capita Income?
GDP per capita measures the economic output of a nation per person. It seeks to determine the prosperity of a nation by economic growth per person in that nation. Per capita income measures the amount of money earned per person in a nation. This metric seeks to evaluate the average per-person income for a given region in order to determine the standard of living and quality of life of a population.
No, in order to increase the per capita income by adjusting the population numbers, the population numbers would have to go lower. Decreasing birth rate (When it is above replacement level) does not reduce population numbers it merely reduces the rate of increase. Whenver birthrate is above 17/1000 the population numbers will continue to increase. That is inconsistent with increased per capita income.
And you were at the time to hear it . . . . . . . . . ? The mind boggles!Lots of couples have said: "Now that we are making more money we don't have to make more babies."
In the circumstances, I suggest that most will forgive me of being repetitious. Just trying again to get the thread back on topic.Do you think humans should colonize other planets and exploit their resources, too?
Not if it is the excuse to extend overpopulation even further. I think we have seen that there may be valid reasons for colonisation on a limited scale, but no excuse whatsoever to pillage world after world to feed our own overpopulation.
Nice. That's such an obvious approach that it surprised me that I hadn't seen it before.If this species had half a brain, it would realise that average standard of living = total resources divided by total population, ...
I stated the "static" and you added the "dynamic". Of course, there is a practical dynamic. It only becomes important when resources begin to run out. When there is just "Adam and Eve", they cannot alone cause world shortages of energy, water and food. Look at the other "time" end of the situation. One crust of bread, one cup of water, and 100 billion population. (Reverse of "Adam and Eve".)I would add that it's the total resources that have been exploited since the SoL comes only from what has been used and not what is left to be used.
Yes! I cannot wait to book a safari to Kepler 442b, where I'll ply the pink seas in a powerful launch, feel the weight of the semtex-tipped harpoon in my hand, while I scan the waves for a breaching exowhale, a beautiful and sensitive creature that will make an excellent conversation piece when mounted in my driveway back home.This is a moral question, which has been concerning me. I would like to know every ones opinions.