Well, if you tried to reason and think, perhaps you could come to the answer yourself.
#1 I never said population wouldn't increase in the short term, I simply said we are headed for depopulation. The curve is not monotonically increasing, therefore, it if current trends continue, the world will peak at 9 billion, and then geometrically lose populaton thereafter.
#2 Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that longer lifespan = bad for population, when in fact, the opposite is the case. The countries where people live the longest lifespans are rapidly depopulating. Japan, Europe, Canada, US. If not for immigration, Europe and US would face seriously crises as there would be hardly any young workers in the next 50 years, and nothing but old retired people. The only reason the world population will growth in the next 50 years is because of developing nations like India and the African continent.
#3 The fallacious assumption that birthrates are static
More people living longer means more people on the planet if birth rates stay the same or increase . Which is what I have been saying
Well guess what, when people are educated, wealthy, and have healthcare and long lifespans, birthrates tend to decline. Couple that with fertility advances that let women have children into their late 30s, and you have the conditions to let people delay child birth. And when people do have children, they have no need to have more than 1 or 2 children, because child labor is no longer needed, and chiildren's life expectency is higher.
But no, no matter how many times it will be pointed out to you, and no matter how much evidence could be presented that you are wrong, I fear you will persist in your beliefs that long life is the primary cause of the world's population pressures, and you will persist in your wrongheaded belief that we must get rid billions of people because you think it is unsustainable.
Every few years, a new group of dimwits dusts off Malthus and proclaims that we won't have enough food, or iron, or copper, or whatever. A static view of the world that holds all over variables constant except one leads to erroneus predications (e.g. Ehrlich's Population Bomb is the most famous, we were supposed to have mass die offs by now). The only problem is, doomsday always fails to appear. Now of course, we'll run out of food and resources in 2050 right? Biotechnology won't change anything right? There will be no innovations in production. No nanotechnology. No new energy. Everything will be the same as 2004, except all 9 billion people will consume the same as an American today. We must assume the worst right? Let's kill off promising scientific research because, ohgawd, if we're wrong about efficiency continuing to increase, by 2050 we're be starving and the environment will be dead because people will live slightly longer.
And what if your wrong? What if restricting the level of healthcare science available to people instead slows the declining birthrates, so we end up with MORE people, instead of accelerating depopulation, you decelerate it? What if closing off valuable scientific corridors means you missed a discovery would could drastically reduce the amount of resources consumed per person? In fact, what if human beings could be engineered to require less food? What if our metabolism could be made more efficient?
Who knows. I look forward to a dynamic and changing, indeed, challenging future. And I will fight tooth and nail against scientific luddites and environmentalist wackos, who sell out my future by vowing to protect me against technology.
