I have become more and more suspicious of population numbers over the last few years. I spent a lot of years in the long term care insurance industry. At one point, a Chinese firm thar was a type of real estate conglomerate was in talks to purchase Genworth which has the largest book of LTCI policies in the US. It was a weird deal that ultimatelydid not come to fruition, but basically, the story/issue was China knew where it was heading due to an aging population and one-child rule - who was going to take care of everyone? Anyway, you have, what two generations of one-child rule, yet the population kept expanding? Did people in Africa/India, etc. have double the number of kids to make up for that, especially as western birth rates fell? If you can't afford four kids, are you going to say, "Well, we need to make up for China's short fall this year, honey - move over!" Even if they did, it still too short of a time period. Last time I checked, it still takes 9 months, not counting nursing time, etc. I am not smart enough to figure the math, but something just doesn't seem right about it.
Did you know that the UN designated 10/12/1999 as 'The Day of Six Billion' ? I am willing to bet a nickel there is probably more to that. Right at the end if the 20th century and on the cusp of forever wars. The fact the rhetoric about climate rose at the same time makes me go 'hmmmm".
And yes, the argument that people are living longer - I am not saying that that is not true. But in 25 years we went from 6B to over 8B? A single generation and how many wars fought by people of child bearing age? Something does not add up. It is akin to the same idea that if it comes from Official Sources (TM), it must be true. Like 'breakfast is the most important meal of the day'. But is it?
I have become more and more suspicious of population numbers over the last few years. I spent a lot of years in the long term care insurance industry. At one point, a Chinese firm thar was a type of real estate conglomerate was in talks to purchase Genworth which has the largest book of LTCI policies in the US. It was a weird deal that ultimatelydid not come to fruition, but basically, the story/issue was China knew where it was heading due to an aging population and one-child rule - who was going to take care of everyone? Anyway, you have, what two generations of one-child rule, yet the population kept expanding? Did people in Africa/India, etc. have double the number of kids to make up for that, especially as western birth rates fell? If you can't afford four kids, are you going to say, "Well, we need to make up for China's short fall this year, honey - move over!" Even if they did, it still too short of a time period. Last time I checked, it still takes 9 months, not counting nursing time, etc. I am not smart enough to figure the math, but something just doesn't seem right about it.
Did you know that the UN designated 10/12/1999 as 'The Day of Six Billion' ? I am willing to bet a nickel there is probably more to that. Right at the end if the 20th century and on the cusp of forever wars. The fact the rhetoric about climate rose at the same time makes me go 'hmmmm".
And yes, the argument that people are living longer - I am not saying that that is not true. But in 25 years we went from 6B to over 8B? A single generation and how many wars fought by people of child bearing age? Something does not add up. It is akin to the same idea that if it comes from Official Sources (TM), it must be true. Like 'breakfast is the most important meal of the day'. But is it?