Yes, the rate at which people, worldwide, are having offspring is declining.
Articles in the Oct 31st Economist go deeply into why this is happening.
Here's what I object to...
While forecasting anything out 40 years or more is generally suspect, in the
case of demographics of humanity it is probably not that far fetched.
However, all of the charts in the article end at 2050...
as if, when population begins to level off at 9BN individuals, there is some
magical occurance, and human impacts on the environment are not as great...
"The world might indeed have the right numbers to boost growth and still
have too many for the environment. The right response to that, though, would
be to curb pollution and try to alter the pattern of growth to make it less
resource-intensive, rather than to control population directly."
Okay, so population growth is slowing. Considerably. However, it appears
that there will be (without some horrendous "culling" thanks to (insert
apocalypse de jour)) well over 6BN people on the planet from now until 100
years from now...
No indication of how we're supposed to support that many people, while we
eat everything that crawls or grows, or swims or flies, and totally decimate
From another article on the same topic is this gem:
"...the human race will have to rely on technology and governance to shift
the world's economy towards cleaner growth. Mankind needs to develop more
and cheaper technologies that can enable people to enjoy the fruits of
economic growth without destroying the planet's natural capital."
It is so easy to proclaim this, and yet, the US for example never even
signed onto Kyoto Protocols and the Copenhagen session may be
equally rancorous. At least The Economist editors agree that our current
course is untenable...unlike all of the Human Caused Climate Chaos
deniers...or those who would deny family planning and condoms to the "third
The idea of "more and cheaper" (in terms of impact on the environment)
technologies flies in the face of our very human nature.
The interconnectedness and fragility of the chemistry that supports the web
of life is ignored, and the results (30, 40, 60 years from now) of our
deprecations have been severely discounted (even while the article mentions
"consequences of global warming - water shortages, mass migration, declining
A "clean coal" commercial just aired on my television...From the unabashedly
"It's clear that meeting America's growing energy demand and keeping
electricity supplies reliable and affordable will require the use of
American coal. But can we use coal and meet the commitment of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in response to climate change concerns?
In a word - yes!"
The URL says it all "BEYOND" ...........belief!
Frish - child free and grateful for it!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]