Posted on 11/09/2018 6:47:33 AM PST by ek_hornbeck
There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having, say researchers.
Their report found fertility rate falls meant nearly half of countries were now facing a "baby bust" - meaning there are insufficient children to maintain their population size.
The researchers said the findings were a "huge surprise".
And there would be profound consequences for societies with "more grandparents than grandchildren".
How big has the fall been?
The study, published in the Lancet, followed trends in every country from 1950 to 2017.
In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. The fertility rate all but halved to 2.4 children per woman by last year.
But that masks huge variation between nations.
The fertility rate in Niger, west Africa, is 7.1, but in the Mediterranean island of Cyprus women are having one child, on average.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
I disagree!
As long as they aren't living on the edge of poverty, huge populations - you know: creative, thinking, industrious human beings - are an asset.
Regards,
Largely so, although I have spent a good deal of time caring for my elderly parents these last few years. Even as recently as two years ago my father was (barely) able to go to Africa with me on a photo safari. Now he’s confined to a wheelchair, as is my mother. At least I was able to arrange for them to share a room in the same facility, that helps a lot.
.the continent with the lowest IQs and extreme inability to care for their peoples in a peaceful way....they are producing like rabbits...l
but we whiteys, with our relatively higher IQ's and the extreme ability to care for our people..
..nothing..
..not even energized enough to have sex and actually breed.
..maybe people have forgotten how to really do it....
Fertility is down because faith is down. As an atheist I swore I’d never approve of my wife having a baby. After I got saved we ended up with 8 children. Praise the Lord!
Globalism has made life brutal for the non silver spoon citizen.... Starting out is always daunting now it’s down right scary - especially for the white male types.
I blame it on the effects of women take the “pill”. Contraceptives cause bad effects in a woman’s body.
And it is against what the Bible and the Catholic Church teach.
“Go forth and be fertile and multiply.” Genesis
Book - How Civilizations Die and Why Islam is Dying, Too. A great read.
Abortion
Abortion
Abortion
The Census Bureau projects that the nation’s total population would cross the 400 million mark in 2051, reaching 420.3 million in 2060. Immigrants and their children drive 80% of our population growth. In 2056, for the first time, the older population, age 65 and over, is projected to outnumber the young, age under 18.
According to the projections, the population age 65 and older is expected to more than double between 2012 and 2060, from 43.1 million to 92.0 million. The older population would represent just over one in five U.S. residents by the end of the period, up from one in seven today. The increase in the number of the “oldest old” would be even more dramatic — those 85 and older are projected to more than triple from 5.9 million to 18.2 million, reaching 4.3 percent of the total population.
“The next half century marks key points in continuing trends — the U.S. will become a plurality nation, where the non-Hispanic white population remains the largest single group, but no group is in the majority,” said Acting Director Thomas L. Mesenbourg. Non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population in 2043, down from the current 63% and 89% in 1970.
So you think that personal economics plays no role in having children?
Ok...
No, but I do think most people who claim they can't afford kids could afford them if they wanted to. They either settle for low paying jobs out of laziness and/or choose to spend their time and money wastefully.
You see it all the time: 30-year-old "men" working as store clerks, spending their money on booze and pot, or continuing to live off student loans for pointless degrees. Honestly, if the sexual revolution hadn't convinced women to give their bodies to such futureless losers, natural selection would weed them out.
I am impressed by your skill in collecting and posting bar-charts and projections on demographical developments, but am less bowled over by your rhetorical powers and/or reasoning faculties.
Stated plainly: Nothing you have posted pertains even tangentially to your assertion that "huge populations are not an asset" or my counter-claim that "creative, thinking, industrious human beings are an asset."
Regards,
Here’s their game:
1) Tell people they must abort their babies because environment
2) Tell people they must import hundreds of millions of third-world primitives because they aren’t having enough babies.
See how that works?
Your counter-claim is a meaningless bromide. It means nothing. Seven of the eight most populous countries in the world are considered part of the less developed world. I have been to China, India, Indonesia (lived there for two years), Pakistan, and Bangladesh. I am sure there are plenty of "creative, thinking, industrious human beings," but their huge populations require a massive amount of resources to support their infrastructure. They have to run to stand still. And for those "creative, thinking, industrious" people in those societies, the only solution is to leave if they want to have any real future.
China realized the negative aspects of having a large population and imposed the one-child policy. It didn't have much of an impact economically. But as China's economic well being improved, the fertility rate went down as is generally the case. It is now well below replacement level.
Europe is suffering from negative population growth due to below replacement level fertility rates. Some misguided leaders like Merkel believe that they can bring in millions of Third World immigrants to stabilize their population decline. The problem is that immigrants are not widgets or units of labor. They bring their own culture and world view.
Germany and most of Europe have done a poor job of assimilating these Third World immigrants, many of whom want the host country to accommodate to their culture and mores. The overwhelming majority of them are on welfare. They have increased crime and poverty rates. In the process they are transforming Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, etc. forever. Ironically, it is reverse colonization.
Demographics matter. The growing Islamization of France and Sweden is a product of higher birthrates by the Muslim populations. There are electoral consequences as well. More is not necessarily better.
You are confusing correlation with causation. The countries you cited are poor not because they have enormous populations. They are poor because they are Third-World Countries. There are namely enough examples of tiny nations which are equally or even more impoverished - simply because they are Third-World Countries! (I know that sounds like a tautology; one should more-precisely say that they are poor because they suffer from many of the same, systemic problems characteristic of Third-World Countries.)
Somalia, Eritrea, Togo, Guinea, the Cape Verde Islands, Jamaica, Sikkim, Nepal, etc. They do not have the "huge populations" you decry - some of them are in fact very sparcely populated - and yet they are poor.
Regards,
First, I am not saying that large populations are the sole reason for poverty, but having large populations and high fertility rates affect significantly a country's ability to prosper. There is a general correlation given the list of countries having the highest fertility rates in the world. Fertility rates by country Other factors such as corruption, despotic governance, tribalism, etc. impact a nation's success.
The BBC article that forms the basis of this thread and is the context for my comments states, "But Prof Murray said: "We will soon be transitioning to a point where societies are grappling with a declining population."
"Half the world's nations are still producing enough children to grow, but as more countries advance economically, more will have lower fertility rates."
"Without migration, countries will face ageing and shrinking populations.
"Dr George Leeson, director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, says that does not have to be a bad thing, as long as the whole of society adjusts to the massive demographic change."
"He told the BBC: "Demography impacts on every single aspect of our lives, just look out of your window at the people on the streets, the houses, the traffic, the consumption, it is all driven by demography.
"Everything we plan for is not just driven by the numbers in the population, but also the age structure and that is changing, so fundamentally we haven't got our heads around it."
"He thinks workplaces are going to have to change and even the idea of retiring at 68, the current maximum in the UK, will be unsustainable."
This is the crux of the matter. We will have to adjust to lower fertility rates and declining populations as our societies age. The economic models of ever expanding populations will need to be revisited. And we have not come to terms yet with the rapidly expanding impact of automation.
Immigration is another key element of public policy. There will be increasing pressure from the Third World to emigrate to the developed world, which has lower fertility rates and ageing populations. For the US, the current kinship system of immigration is bringing in millions of uneducated, unskilled workers who become a drain on the society. We are importing poverty. Immigrants and their US born children drive 80% of our population growth. In 1970, one in 21 was foreign-born in this country; today, a little less than one in 8 is foreign-born, the highest in 105 years; and by 2023 it will be one in 7, the highest in our history. In the past 50 years we have witnessed the largest peaceful migration of people in history. What impact will this have on our culture, our values, our system of government, and the vision of our Founders? And our electoral system?
How many immigrants will it take to sink the lifeboat called America? We cannot absorb the billions of people who want to come here.
Back-pedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling...
So, you agree that your initial statement - that "enormous populations are not an asset" - is an overgeneralization, right?
Virtually everything else you have stated is quite true, and your remarks include many insightful observations. I feel that you and I probably have a similar stance regarding, e.g., illegal immigration and even unrestricted legal immigration.
But "enormous populations" are not per se a liability. America, for example, would be a more-prosperous country and an even greater military power if its population were to grow from (today) 330 million to (someday) half a billion - provided that that growth was driven by natural increase and not dependent largely upon the importation of uneducated, unassimilated Third-Worlders.
Regards,
In the real world, I would say it is a valid statement. I guess it depends on the definition of enormous.
But "enormous populations" are not per se a liability. America, for example, would be a more-prosperous country and an even greater military power if its population were to grow from (today) 330 million to (someday) half a billion - provided that that growth was driven by natural increase and not dependent largely upon the importation of uneducated, unassimilated Third-Worlders.
"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas." The fact is that we will be approaching half a billion people by the end of this century, mainly driven by immigration. We are the world's biggest debtor nation and have a $100 trillion unfunded liability in the form of our entitlement programs. Medicare has been running in the red since 2008 and SS since 2010. Our population of over 65 will double by 2030 as 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day for the next 20 years. In the long term, we will see a decline in our standard of living.
Being a major military power is a function of our economy. As happened in Europe and the Soviet Union, the decision between "guns and butter" usually results in more butter because it has more constituents. Technology will drive what kind of military we have. Mass armies fighting huge land wars are yesterday.
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.