This should make liberals very happy!
…11Thus I will punish the world for its evil And the wicked for their iniquity; I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless.
12I will make mortal man scarcer than pure gold And mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.…
Don't know the applicability to the coming end times - I just find it interesting.....
When Obamacare takes full effect and the death panel get into high gear people will really begin to disappear and the earth.Will be saved!
Considering you could take the population of the whole world and fit them all in the state of Texas and the density would be the same as the city of Houston, we’re certainly not overpopulated by an stretch of the imagination.
What is unbelievable is the ignorance of people who believe that the world is overpopulated and the lack of faith of the atheistic in that category. The atheistic people have shown they will believe anything, but it is quite telling how the atheistic prefer the culture of death to the culture of life...quite telling indeed.
Have you ever seen the movie, “Children of Men” (2006)?
Movie trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VT2apoX90o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men
The premise of the movie is that women have been infertile for 20 years for an unknown reason.
How about making a movie where the women simply choose not to have children?
According to this wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
“Global human population growth amounts to around 75 million annually, or 1.1% per year.”
It’s expected to hit 9.6 billion by 2050 if the current growth rates stays the same.
I'm not sure that's correct...but that's what I read...
But doesn’t capitalism require growth to work? A company that makes and sells widgets needs to sell more every year, right?
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.
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.
I would feel okay about this ‘de-population’ if it was true of muslim countries also.
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.