Posted on 01/01/2015 4:47:26 AM PST by Enlightened1
Well, I see a play written 2,500 years ago by Aristophanes in which the women simply chose to withhold sex from their men.
My son’s generation (20 something) by my observations are content to live virtually, which will not enable procreation.
I don’t think that is quite right by a factor of seven or so...
If the population density of Houston is 3,372 people per square mile, and the area of Texas is 268,820 square miles, then multiplying 3,372 by 268,820 should give the population of the earth (7,100,000,000) but it only gives 906,461,040.
I think the real answer is the population density of Houston spread over 2/3 of the contiguous United States (not Alaska)
Which is about 2.1 million square miles...
No, you’re the one who doesn’t see people freely choosing families at a level they and the world can support as a good thing.
10 billion people on the planet will only bring more authoritarian oppression.
Why?
Not quite. You simply need to sell some thing or service that people want to buy, you don't have to sell the same thing or more of them, and not to an expanding population.
That is, you don't have to have more people to sell to, you have to sell different things to the same part of the population, or the same things to a wider part of the population.
no worries... blizzard just released WoD... and it sux. procreation will be back on track in no time
Population Control is actually EUGENICS.
It is meant to keep the third world from competing for their own resources.
As for the idiot author suggesting that China’s one child policy will reduce the population by half......
I ask WHEN he thinks that happens???
The policy would have to sustain for over 100 years and that is if it could actually be enforced.
As the imbalance in males passes 10% you will find war around the corner.
Leadership and policy will change shortly thereafter.
Societies with fewer people wither and die and those who grow their population dominate. Any disincentive to child-bearing directed from the government will ultimatly lead to the demise of those who are being governed. Legalized abortion, vehicle emission standards, and child safety standards on toys are all examples of government actions that serve to reduce population growth.
Fool yourself if you like, but Population Control is NOT a “conservative” position.
Responsible people don't have more children than they can support, and the world needs more responsible people.
It DOES sound like some of the things liberals say, but if you read the section again: "...But the more our global numbers continue to grow the harder it eventually is to provide everyone with the advanced standard of living we’re accustomed to, and the more reason for global governmental control, rationing, etc..." I don't interpret that as saying we have to have global governmental control, I believe 9YearLurker meant to say that there are authoritarian regimes (China) that will use that as a pretext or reason to impose their will on individuals.
At least that was how I read it, after reading it twice.
The homo revolution is the more glaring example of the oligarchs working to reduce populations ...
An importantly truism is that nations have high birthrates until they reach an economic prosperity plateau unique to that nation, then their birth rate plummets to just “maintenance level” of about 2.1 to 2.3 children per family.
Typically, government and social-cultural forces *cannot* increase this rate, but they can most certainly drive it lower still. How?
First and foremost, by adding more and more demands on potential parents, that increase the degree of difficulty and expense of raising children “properly”. This includes raising the age when children are legally emancipated from their parents.
Second, government can push for greater “productivity in the work force” by encouraging women to work rather than to have and raise children, which they denigrate.
Third, government can increase taxes so much that children become an economic burden. Likewise, government can force wages down in real terms or with inflation. They can also provide easy access to both birth control and abortion.
Culture can also inhibit population growth by despising large families, encouraging materialism, as well as time consuming entertainments that take the place of social interaction.
Thanks, yes, that’s what I meant. And, I think the next stage comes not so much just from large countries like China, but at the global, UN level.
How much better if people of their own individual choices stem the continuing population growth!
Seeing that the following statement represents the totality of impimp’s about page, I’m quite certain however that he doesn’t agree with me:
“Contraception comes from the father of lies himself - satan.”
Since the U.S. occupies about 4% of the world's land area (including Alaska and Hawaii), this means about 2% of the world's total land area could support its population at the population density of Houston.
Houston is one of the nicer large towns in America and far less densely packed than cities of comparable size. Much more of the city includes single dwelling houses with lawns than densely packed high rises. Traffic is a problem, but far less so than cities of similar size or even cities much less smaller like Pittsburgh. Some of that has to do with terrain (Houston is basically on a nice flat plain), but more of it has to do with the fact that it isn't densely populated.
Put another way, I have a nice 1/5th acre lot in a nice working class suburb of Pittsburgh. Two of us live here. Houston's population density is about 5.25 people per acre or slightly more than half as crowded as us.
I would feel okay about this ‘de-population’ if it was true of muslim countries also.
We’ve had far too many move in around here.
There are a lot of factors — religious people tend to have more kids; college educated women fewer, etc. — but one act that seems to have a large negative impact on the birth rate is any social security system that guarantees money to those who didn’t have kids.
In most cultures, the next generation has a financial responsibility to the elderly. In my childhood, I knew people with houses designed so that grandma or auntie had her own “apartment” within the house, usually just a couple of rooms and not always even a kitchen. The family supported their own, and never thought twice about it. People were motivated to have kids for a practical reason; each generation took responsibility for the generation before it, so there needed to be a next generation.
When some government program replaces that system, that tie is broken. There still needs to be another generation to support the last, but it no longer needs to be someone you know, and people no longer see that they have to pay for those who end up supporting them. A fair percentage of the population looks around, realizes it’s expensive to raise kids and decide to “let someone else do that.”
Which is why, in a society where “the government” takes care of the elderly, kids eventually become a luxury. Each generation has to support, not just the prior generation, but the government structure that redistributes the money, which has a tendency to grow, meaning each generation is paying out more and more of their income to somebody else, and they have less and less money to raise kids. It’s a vicious spiral with an entirely predictable end.
Been happening since ancient times, no reason to think it’s going to start working differently now.
Yes, I had read it somewhere and did not do the calculation. I looked it up again, and found this (see link). It fits with what you’re saying. The more accurate population density would be NYC. But, the world’s population could fit in Texas...and it still shows how non-populated the earth really is.
You know, mothers have killed 1.32 Billion people in the past 34 years...and, of course, that prevents their children form reproducing too. Isn’t it sad, we’ve given mothers the right to murder their children? So, murder them they do. They’ve killed more people, just since 1980, than all the world’s wars and health epidemics combined throughout recorded history. They make Mao look like an angel, comparatively speaking. Except, it is the ideals of the atheistic like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Sanger, Democrats, etc, who have sponsored this killing spree of late. Now, all American taxpayers support the funding of these killings worldwide, regardless of their beliefs and religious objections.
If the world’s population lived like…
August 8, 2012
http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/
Number of Abortions - Abortion Counters
Each real-time abortion counter is based on the most current statistics* for the number of abortions in the US & the number of abortions Worldwide.
(this site made a recent adjustment...because just last week it reflected 1.36 billion - probably because the reported rate is declining due to many factors not the least of which is over-the-counter abortion drugs in which Chile did a study the indicates these now account for 20% reduction in surgical abortions)
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
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.