Population Control

I've been reading and I've come to a conclusion that a majority of the world's problems could be diminished by reduction of Developed nations' populations.
Think about it;
Lower population decreases the strain on the environment.
Lower population decreases the cost of goods.
Lower population decreases the strain of social programs.
Lower population lowers unemployment.
Lower population raises wages.
Lower population increases the attention that teachers can give to students.
Lower population encourages more attention put towards a smaller number of children by parents.
Lower population decreases the spread and contagiousness of disease.
Lower population decreases some of the pressures that lead to crime.
Lower population decreases poverty.


Of course, all of these would have to be accomplished by allowing abortions and a change towards "abstinence only" education in public schools.

Nations such as Japan and Italy are reporting negative population growths, coupled with inproved standards of living and higher incomes.

>>10
The 2 main factors affecting gdp are the natural resources per person and the amount of people needed to manipulate those resources to increase their value. Value is of course determinned by a market economy. Technology, education and machinery increase a person's ability to increase the value of those resources.

If we start off with 1 guy with the world to himself, he won't be very rich. Likewise if the world's population was 1 trillion most people would starve and possibly have to eat each other to stay alive, it would be absurd and absolute chaos until people have eaten each other down to a level of population the world could sustain. Anyways, if we increase the number of people in the world we see that people can cooperate and mutually benefit each other and increase the gdp per capita. As population increases further more complex and large scale industries can be developped allowing more efficient machinery and more variety of value increasing industries with few restrictions on resource use.

However at a certain point different resources become strained. It becomes physically impossible to use the resource any more efficiently or to increase it's value any more. If the population continues to grow, the population will notice they can afford less and less of goods and services dependant on that resource. Long story short their gdp per capita begins to decrease.

The point where gdp per capita begins to decrease often comes before the point where gdp is at it's highest. The question here is whether you see the population as manufacturing units (proletariats) and the gdp must increase to the highest possible or whether you see the population as citizens (bourgeoise) and the gdp per capita must increase to the highest possible.

>>11
What if there were 500 billion people in the US would be more dense than Japan. The analogy was intended to prove that there is a cap to the maximum population possible. If you can't even admit that there is a cap limit, since it is so unreasonable to think otherwise you must be a troll.

"As for natural resources per person, well that's some neo-malthusian theory right there."
No it fucking isn't. It's straight forward logic. If fossil fuels allow 1 acre to feed 20 people and there are 15 people per acre, then fossil fuels run out and technology only allows one acre to feed 5 people without fossil fuels, what happens?

What if population reaches it's limit for the amount of food available and there is a drought? What do you think happens?

Fucking idiot. gb2 soviet russia