65G and Future Urban Warfare

[LRRPF52]

Faulty reasoning. The population growth would result only from births, not from increased life span.

To borrow from your example, start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal.

Then cut the birth rate to zero, increase the life span by 100% (or even 200%), and what happens?

The population would decrease, not increase.

Population growth results only from births, not extended life span.

Negative. A zero growth population is a balance of births and deaths.

We no longer have a balance of deaths because people are living way longer than they normally did. So if your population declines 37% in births, but instead of dying at age 40 like they did before, they live to 60, 70, or 80, and things get out of hand.

This is all from the work of demographers, not my claims. These are people who watch and record these rates globally as their profession.

They are talking about demographic winter in the future, where your conclusion finally happens, but global population growth rates have been driven by longer life expectancies and a lot less births than normal.

High birth rates in the underdeveloped world have led to low life expectancies due to disease, lack of infrastructure, wear and tear on mothers, malnutrition, and starvation even.

As those birth rates declined, the aging populations ballooned, with a peak occurring over the next 13 years.

I would strongly suggest anyone interested in learning more about it to watch this video:

[video=youtube;lZeyYIsGdAA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA[/video]