U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2013, 08:58 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158

Advertisements

It all depends on the ratio of taxpayers to government dependents.

When more babies are born into welfare than are born to taxpaying working people, there is a problem with population growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2013, 09:13 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,711,508 times
Reputation: 22158
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
you don't need to worry about there being more resources per person. there are enough resources for many times our population.

im not suggesting we have children that we cant afford. people shouldn't have kids if they cant take care of them. but if they can take care of them, then it is a good thing for them to have kids.
I agree with that -- but most people really don't want many kids. If someone loves and wants kids, it's fine, they can have as many as they can both afford and want but very very people actually want more than 0-2 kids even if they can afford more.

It's also wrong to have kids if you aren't capable of supporting them. No one should feel entitled to the money of others just because they think having kids should get them that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 12:26 AM
 
1 posts, read 829 times
Reputation: 10
I think the population decline is a double-edged sword, there are advantages with disadvantages
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 12:41 AM
 
2,409 posts, read 2,489,978 times
Reputation: 1807
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
I read a little bit on demographics when I can find something. Its interesting that the natural assumption is that declines in population are always bad. I don't think governments like them because it means fewer taxpayers. I don't think business likes it because it means fewer customers. But I guess there are some advantages to a declining population. Less need to use up natural resources. No need to build a lot more schools, homes, roads etc. I know Japan is going through this, and certain intellectuals are upset about it, but I'm not sure the common folks are. The more I think about it though, I don't see a problem with a shrinking population. Anyone want to set me straight.
Why don't we start from the extreme case where everybody is old. Do you see a problem with that?

Now, let's say a realistic country has 20% of the population being old. So it has that problem but to a lesser degree.

Then the next country has 30% of the population being old. The problem gets worse.

Then the next country has 40% of the population being old. The problem gets even worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 03:52 AM
 
6,359 posts, read 7,327,369 times
Reputation: 10807
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Conserving land instead of developing it is a conservative principle, lost on most people who identify as a Republican voter these days. I give a good amount of money to local conservation groups to purchase land so that it will never be developed or subdivided...
How true. It seems that most Republicans these days just think that "conservative" is synonymous with "anti-government".

Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
I give a good amount of money to local conservation groups to purchase land so that it will never be developed or subdivided...
Good for you! More people should. Conserving land is very pro-people, too (as is population control). There are so many long-term benefits derived from protecting farmland, forests and even just natural areas. It's a shame that some people simply equate "open space" to areas that can be developed. There is a real disconnect to our natural world when people believe that food comes from a grocery store or clean water from a tap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2013, 06:19 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,674 posts, read 28,568,174 times
Reputation: 14611
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
You miss the point as well. Most of the population in the world already lives in the places most habitable for human civilization with LIMITED water resources that are getting worse in many areas of the world right now.
im not missing any of your genius points. its funny to see that im disagreeing with people and they want to believe im missing their brilliant points. i stopped quoting above with your line on "LIMITED water." the surface of the earth is 70% or so covered in water. we could expand our capacity to desalinate water and our LIMITED water supply becomes UNLIMITED. the resources aren't so limited, they may require certain shifts in how we acquire them but we can do it. the failures of certain people to be able to meet the needs of their people is their failure; not a lack of resources.

Last edited by CaptainNJ; 11-26-2013 at 06:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2013, 03:58 PM
 
Location: IN
20,170 posts, read 34,488,778 times
Reputation: 12508
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
im not missing any of your genius points. its funny to see that im disagreeing with people and they want to believe im missing their brilliant points. i stopped quoting above with your line on "LIMITED water." the surface of the earth is 70% or so covered in water. we could expand our capacity to desalinate water and our LIMITED water supply becomes UNLIMITED. the resources aren't so limited, they may require certain shifts in how we acquire them but we can do it. the failures of certain people to be able to meet the needs of their people is their failure; not a lack of resources.
China is already experiencing severe water shortages and that is where a huge percentage of the world population resides. Agriculture also needs an adequate water supply. Desalination is not feasible for any areas inland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 04:48 AM
 
413 posts, read 552,391 times
Reputation: 669
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
You miss the point as well. Most of the population in the world already lives in the places most habitable for human civilization with LIMITED water resources that are getting worse in many areas of the world right now. Low population densities are common where agriculture is not possible or very limited in desert areas, wooded areas, cold areas, etc. Yes, we can develop more land expensively for inefficient sprawl, but developers and wealthy should pay the full cost of such developments and not ask the taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles. Conserving land instead of developing it is a conservative principle, lost on most people who identify as a Republican voter these days. I give a good amount of money to local conservation groups to purchase land so that it will never be developed or subdivided, or private landowners can place a conservation easement on land they already own. This means all rural activities can continue as the land remains a working farm or a wooded homestead with a conservatively managed woodlot. This is a solid way forward, particularly in many areas that are rural yet have growth pressures from developers.
^ yes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 09:07 AM
 
Location: NJ
22,674 posts, read 28,568,174 times
Reputation: 14611
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
China is already experiencing severe water shortages and that is where a huge percentage of the world population resides. Agriculture also needs an adequate water supply. Desalination is not feasible for any areas inland.
you are missing the point. the resources are there and we do have the ability to tap into them. we also have the ability to come up with innovative ways to be able to better develop and utilize resources. some countries will be better than others, but if you have a severe water shortage in America i have a feeling we will find a way to make utilizing the ocean's water more feasible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 09:09 AM
 
Location: NJ
22,674 posts, read 28,568,174 times
Reputation: 14611
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogMomDeb View Post
^ yes
why would you agree with that? he is suggesting that because he doesn't think other people's lives have meaning; that we should just conserve land. so his life is so wonderful but more people don't deserve life, their lives are less important than empty land.

its another extremely elitist and selfish attitude that someone can have because they are in the fortunate position of already having life and opportunity to enjoy it. that chance wasn't withheld from him, but he would hold it from others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top