Posted on 07/27/2007 10:29:58 PM PDT by minn7rules
Soylent Green was a myth ?
Those demographers don't live in California.
Yeah, that why our news broadcasts are full of the mass die offs from famine going on in CA right?
Unfortunately not.
Demographers are predicting California’s population will jump from its present 30-35 million to 60 million in 2050.
Mostly due to hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across the border, especially pregnant females looking for 'free' medical care.
L
How about you actually try looking up Thomas Malthus and his theories so you know what you are talking about before responding again?
Ah, stop right there, LOL.
The demographers cited in the article claimed that the long-anticipated population crisis wasn't occuring, that a natural regulatory mechanism was working to suppress fertility, that world population would top out at 10 billion or so.
I used a short-hand example to say that I didn't believe them and that 10 billion would probably be beyond the capacity of the earth to support.
I think everyone but self-righteous, small-minded, mean-spirited, pompous jackasses like you got it without further explanation.
The areas of the world with high birth rates are those least able to support larger numbers of people. Therefore, those areas with less than replacement birthrates - the first world - are faced with innundation by immigrants and destruction of their cultures.
What is the recommended solution? Increased birth rates in the first world. What does stability in the first world plus increases in population in the second world imply? Growing world populations, not stability. What are the chances of bringing down the fertility rates in the third world to replacement levels? Not good, especially since Muslims regard high birth rates as their principal weapon in the war with the West.
And what about your blind trust in "demographers"? Which demographers? How much dispute is there among them? The author has nothing to say about this, no citations, nothing. Yet you believe him because he supports your bias. Contrast this with the way you treat climate experts.
You know that lump on top of your shoulders? I'd have it amputed since it's clearly good for nothing.
Look carefully at the projection (get help). In the next 40 years Middle-Eastern and African (and Latin American) populations will grow a great deal - resulting in huge migrations and political explosions. That means no stability...therefore all predictions are off, not reliable, kaput.
“What are the chances of bringing down the fertility rates in the third world to replacement levels? Not good, especially since Muslims regard high birth rates as their principal weapon in the war with the West.”
Did you actually read the article? Four out of 9 people live in countries that have birthrates below replacement level...fertility is plummeting all over the world because of a little thing called BIRTH CONTROL.
Secondly, you acknowledge that Muslim radicals regard their higher reproduction as one of their main weapons. So then why would we want them coming to the West? You say the article doesn’t quote demographers: “Which demographers?” What?! It is plain scientific fact that fertility is falling worldwide, it is NOT some alternative junk-science like Malthuse
4 out of 9 live in countries that have birthrates below replacement levels. Gee, that means 5 out of 9 live where? Fertility is declining (plummeting?) but that doesn't mean population is declining, or even that population growth is declining. It's a lot more subtle than that. You have to look at how many children reach the reproductive age, and many other factors. Further, stating what population will be 50 years on is more a guess than a prediction.
Why would we want Muslims coming to the West? Why would we want Mexicans coming to America? Try and stop them.
Malthus is junk science? You really don't know what you're talking about. Why do you think I linked that article? I tried to educate you...but apparantly you're so sure you're right that you see no need to question anything you believe.
Pathetic.
Liberal Larry, your link was to a WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!! Is that your unbiased, expert scientific source? Please...
Here’s some actual stats for you, if they will make a difference:
-A nation needs 2.1 births per woman in her lifetime to maintain a stable population.
-CHINA (the world’s largest nation in terms of population) is at about 1.75 birth per woman. In 1965 the birthrate was about 40 births per thousand. Now it’s at about 13.
-In Iran (America’s biggest threat, and a Muslim nation) the birthrate has fallen to below replacement - currently 1.71 births per woman.
-Among other non-Western, ‘3rd world’ nations there are many with birthrates below replacement. To name just a few Chile 1.97, Turkey 1.89, Thailand 1.64, Cuba 1.60, South Korea 1.28, Japan 1.23, Taiwan 1.12, Singapore 1.07, and with the lowest fertility in the world Hong Kong at 0.98 births per woman.
-In other nations across the globe fertility has fallen precipitously in the past few decades. Just to use your Mexican example, contrary to popular belief the typical Mexican family is not 10, 8, 5, or even 3, children. Currently the average Mexican woman has 2.39 children in her lifetime. Hardly an unmanageable population explosion...
-Global fertility is dropping like a rock, currently at 2.59 births per woman. Global population will continue to climb because of ‘demographic momentum’ which is a subject I won’t get into here because I don’t believe you’re capable of understanding.
Check out these stats at the CIA world factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
And what's your idea of an unbiased, expert scientific source? The CIA! Hahahahhahaha....
Forget it. Live in ignorance.
Just saw this.
Demographic momentum is just a fancy way of saying that it takes awhile for population figures to start showing the effect of a drop in fertility Actually it may show up in surprising ways.
Consider a hypothetical. An average woman in a population gives birth to 6 children but only 2 survive through full reproductive age. If the trend is consistant then her two children will each have 6 kids - 12 total - but only two will survive to reproduce - 4 total. Now suppose the fertility of an average woman drops to 4 but all survive through full reproductive age. Then a total of 16 will survive to reproduce...so even though fertility has dropped the population will increase explosively. Of course, this is only an exagerated hypothetical to illustrate a point. There's more. How one defines the terms and does the counting can strongly influence the result...so one has to look very, very carefully at the methodology.
Now I don't mind if a more knowledgeable person talks down to me. I learn something. But you're not that person.
Liberal Larry...what can I say
Your claim that Wikipedia is a more reliable source than the US Central Intelligence Agency is just laughable. The CIA have no motivation to fudge birthrate statistics around the world.
Next, if you are seriously interested in educating yourself, how about you read this CBS News story:
“UN: World Fertility Drops”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/27/health/main669744.shtml
-”Following a trend among rich nations, the fertility rate in developing countries has dropped below three children per women for the first time, a United Nations report says.
The findings reflect trends, common among many researchers including the U.S. Census Bureau, that suggest the world population boom that had been feared in recent decades would not come to pass. A key factor has been the unexpected drop in the fertility rate.
The U.N. report, released Tuesday, said the fertility rate of 2.9 came as people across developing nations are waiting longer to marry and have children, and are using family planning including contraception more often.”
So now you’ve got the UN saying the same thing. Do you reject their projections and statistics as well??? Perhaps we should consult Wikipedia to get the real scoop...
I never made that claim. What I said is that the CIA is not a neutral, scientific organization. The Wikipedia article is a good one, citing lots of primary sources...and many of these sources must also be behind the CIA report.
The CIA have no motivation to fudge birthrate statistics around the world
The CIA is a political organization, very political in its public pronouncements. Demography is a highly sensitive subject, politically. Religion, economics, ideology can be very, very threatened by certain findings. Privately, the CIA is charged to give the best advice it can to government officials. Publicly, it's quite dangerous to challange those officials.
However, since you like the CIA, take a look at this and google "CIA+overpopulation".
Perhaps we should consult Wikipedia to get the real scoop...
So you still haven't read the article. What is it with you? And now you're citing the U.N. as an unimpeachable source? How droll.
If you'd read the article, and the CIA links I posted, you'd see that those fertility rate drops do not justify your rosy interpretation. We're still going to see massive destabilizing, immigration and environmental degredation, and maybe real collapse.
In addition, I said I don't believe the demographers because what they are claiming contradicts what I see and what my friends see...in California and many other places.
The link I provided in my last post doesn’t work correctly. You’ll have to google “global trends 2015”, second source. I viewed it as HTML but it is a pdf document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.