Replies

Could this Russia maintain a strong economy, national optimism or a capable military?

Gee, how did they do it back in the 1800s, when their population was 50% of what it will be in 2050?
How does Israel do it today, with a population just over 5M?
These people have their heads up their you-know-what.

My own view is that the planet is too crowded. Things would be a lot better if we had 3B people instead of 8B.
If you buy into the argument that we have to continuously grow, then eventually we'll all be living in misery. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with maintaining a stable population.

First, a declining population is not a "stable population".

Second, the ponzi schemes setup all over the world where the younger workers provide retirement benefits for older people only works if the younger workers group continues to expand to support the expanding retiring group.

See what home values do when homes are sitting empty because there is no one to live in it.

And last but not least, declining populations eventually cease to exist at some point.

I think that you might accept my assertion that it is not necessarily the case that people who have few or no children are secular scoundrels who are only concerned about not being bothered by children's costs and interference with their lifestyle.

There are indeed such people, but people on threads such as this tend to forget that there are other, valid reasons for not having children. Some look at the world and don't like what they see and decide to not bring a child into a world that they perceive as crowded, violent, and too competitive. As regards the latter characteristic of modern society, prospective parents look at their level of intelligence, which will be passed on through their genes, and decide that their genes will not equip their children to compete in the modern world. Surely, they know it must be horrible to be a failure because you cannot do what your contemporaries are capable of. Argue about how they are wrong in their perceptions until you are blue in the face but you won't change their mind.

Others know that their genetic make-up is such that their children are likely to suffer from a number of neurological problems and extremely bad health. Why burden some poor little soul with those problems? No, better that a child have a good genetic make-up.

Still others accept the reality that they don't have the financial wherewithal to support a family, even one child. They accept being single and working two jobs or marry and have both themselves and their spouse work, just to make enough money to get by.

In other words, don't make the argument so damned simplistic, i.e., the birth dearth is due to a bunch of greedy, self-centered people who just stomp their feet and say, "No, I'm not going to a parent, it would interfere with my lifestyle." No doubt such people exist but they cannot be the only variable. I don't believe it.

And yes, I know you can easily point to the 1950's and other times in which there were lots of children. But, and this is a big "but", the world has changed. It has gotten more competitive, health care has gotten to be a big concern, all has changed.

Anyway, that's my two cents. It's close to midnight, so this old man is going to bed. 'Night, all. Will respond to any comments tomorrow.