The OP link was just about numbers, but this one is much more meaningful:This video by National Geographic is very good. Overpopulation, it's not about the space. We can't economically/feasably sustain this many people. Think about it.
Hrm. Not sure if that math works out.You make up for the sperm donor that has over 1,000 kids.
A lot of these women, for some reason, already had kids, sometimes several. And no, I'm not going to go dig up everything I've read in the last few years on artificial insemination stats, I don't understand why a woman with children would need to artificially have more. Look at octomom. So consider it unreliable.Hrm. Not sure if that math works out.
As long as the mother has only one child by sperm donor, then the numbers work out.
With 1 man and 1000 women, you get 1000 children.
If he donates 1 million, you get 1 million children. But you never get more children than parents.
When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.Not really. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-one-child-rule-turns-time-bomb-223258406.html" [Broken]
But the problem is sometimes when we fix one thing, we break three more.When you cut back on new births, of course there is going to be basicaly a *one time* period where there will be a large elderly population, then things will normalize and be for the benefit of all.
In the US we are about to enter that phase as we had a *baby boom* after WWII, and then the population began to normalize, the baby boomers are now approaching retirement. After the baby boomers are gone, there will no longer be a disproportionate elderly population. Sometimes you have to suffer a bit to get better.