Posted on 01/09/2020 8:36:35 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
NEW YORK, January 10 (C-Fam) Even with adjustments for longer, healthier living, the UN’s latest population figures show rapid aging and economic unpreparedness across the globe. By each of the three metrics used in the latest UN report on aging, only Africa is projected to avoid the harsh effects of aging in the coming decades, a world where the number of elderly is projected to more than double, reaching more than 1.5 billion.
According to World Population Prospects 2019, by 2050, one in six people will be over the age of 65, up from one in eleven in 2019, as the world’s older population grows in both absolute and relative terms.
The slowest to age are those regions that have already grown old: Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Africa will age quickly as fertility rates drop and life expectancy rises, but nine of the ten fastest aging countries are in Asia, led by Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, whose fertility plummeted decades ago and remains below replacement levels despite government interventions to increase it.
By the traditional measure of aging, counting the number of those 65 years and older per hundred people 20-64, the ratio of elderly dependent persons will rise sharply from 16 to 28 by 2050. In Europe there will be 49 elderly per 100 workers; in Japan, Korea, and Spain there will be a stunning 80 elderly per 100 workers. Conversely, in Africa, just 7 elderly are supported by 100 workers today, and this will rise slowly to just 9 by 2050.
The aging predicament is so severe that UN statisticians alternatively defined old age based on remaining life expectancy of 15 years. This “prospective old age” method assumes that people will work until just 15 years before death in their 80s, a highly optimistic assumption.
(Excerpt) Read more at c-fam.org ...
PING!
Stoopid climate change! Wait, is it a record? If it’s not recorded, it doesn’t count.
When us old, white guys are all dead the world will burn.
Just sayin’.
Yup. I'm 76 so, get ready.
I’m right behind ya...
Aging is a more immediate threat than climate change. Why isn’t the UN doing anything to slow it down?
“Why isn’t the UN doing anything to slow it down?”
Well, I’ve heard recently they’ve pass a resolution making it illegal.
I can’t speak for other countries but I think more people in the US would have kids if they knew the fed wasn’t just going to corral them into debt slavery. Artificial low interest rates and money printing has completely perverted consumer behavior to the point where everyone is trying to spend themselves into happiness and fulfillment. The ones at the top and the bottom vie for wealth transfers to either keep playing or the opportunity to play at all.
Nope.
It’s artificial birth control and abortion. The impetus of those trends can be debated, but they are the root source.
Japan's decline is something ridiculous too. They sell more adult diapers now than infant diapers.
The upside to our immigrant invasion is that most are Christian...unlike Europe which is mostly Muslim invaders.
Baloney, I'm getting older just as fast as last year.
The youngsters might prefer
To Avoid responsibility ... raising kids is tough
Why bring kids into a world that will end in 11.4 years from climate change
It’s cheaper and less hassle to shoot your seeds with cheap porn
Kids love their phones more than each other
Parents are dumb so why would you want to be one.
I’ve noticed more Earthly wrinkles lately... /s
I cringe at just about anything the U. S. addresses these days.
But no worries, when the next ice age comes, a shrinking population will be a plus.
Is it above one year per year?
Wake me when it gets there.
I cant see retirement being a thing much longer unless you can fund it yourself. Pension age has been drawn out to 67 here in Australia and there is talk of extending that to 70 soon enough! I cant see pensions being available in the future as our country has never saved for them - Its just been a Ponzi Scheme! They have known about this since the 70’s and not done a damn thing savings wise!
Well for heaven sakes man why have you been keeping this chart a secret? Why haven't you shown it [ a chart maintaining that the entire growing population in the world could be comfortably ensconced in West Texas] to the people of Los Angeles and to the people of Las Vegas begging for water? Why haven't you shown it to the people who are sitting in traffic jams in New Jersey for hours in commutes?
The truth is there is very little habitable and attractive land with good climate where people want to live. The idea that you're going to put 9 billion people in the wastes of West Texas is too absurd to debate.
But let us consider the idea of installing 9 billion people in one state and I will show you a dystopia rivaling our worst prisons. State control of everything would be mandatory; there will be no liberty. Everything, and I mean everything including air, light, water and exercise space for children would be rationed. The more density the less quality of life, the more density the less liberty.
The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources. Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims. Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc. Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.
This is not a conservative question, we don't have to deny that there is insufficient habitable and desirable land for the doubling of American population every fifty years in order to maintain our conservative credentials. I don't know where this notion that growing population is good comes from among conservatives. Is it because misguided conservatives do not want to admit a predicate that allows for abortion? Is it because there is a Roman Catholic tradition that does not want to admit a predicate for birth control? Is it to sustain the Wall Street Journal's editorial approach of open borders? Is it because there is a misguided conservative tradition that no land use controls can be accepted even when we need actual protection from our neighbors?
The idea of Jeffersonian democracy, the idea of the New England Cracker Barrel democracy, only works when there is sufficient space for man to live independent both of his neighbor and the government. Double your population and halve your liberties
My wife started playing hockey in her fifties.
Two of my kids work at an ice rink so she joined a league to be involved in their interests.
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.