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.
Then of course we are only a very few years off there being artificial wombs which host our babies for us. As soon as that happens women are free, or as free as men are. Babies in that system are technically ALL unwanted since the mothers do not want to birth them.
I fear the religious in the government (and there are many of them) will make the US into the exact same thing we are seeing in some Muslim countries at the moment. Where Christians(in the US) are accepted and those who are not are demonized. If the law is made by mostly religious folk, I think that could end up in a very sticky situation. I believe they mostly want the Second Coming to happen as soon as possible and Israel and Jerusalem feature pretty significantly in that agenda.
Turkey has a rate of 1.89, Indonesia around 2.2 but declining, Malaysia 1.8, UAE 1.46, Iran is 1.69 just to name a few.
May take a while before they see population collapse, but heading that way.
When the fertility rate in Iran fell so low, Government officials, alarmed, banned vasectomies.
I wonder if Saudi Arabia and Dubai are a bit worried as they're so dependent on immigrants. They're not worried about their immigrant supply drying up, from Pakistan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India (where the fertility rate is now coming closer to 2.0)?
Immigrants may be auctioned off one day to the highest bidders. Highest bidder: Come here and we'll give you free rent? A car? Free transit tickets? Food stamps? And then headed for babies for profit?
When the fertility rate in Iran fell so low, Government officials, alarmed, banned vasectomies.
I wonder if Saudi Arabia and Dubai are a bit worried as they're so dependent on immigrants. They're not worried about their immigrant supply drying up, from Pakistan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India (where the fertility rate is now coming closer to 2.0)?
Immigrants may be auctioned off one day to the highest bidders. Highest bidder: Come here and we'll give you free rent? A car? Free transit tickets? Food stamps? And then headed for babies for profit?
Are you referring to immigrants willing to live the rest of their lives as women in Saudi Arabia. Or perhaps temporary workers who will take the lack of freedom cash bonus to work a few years and return to their home nations to have the next generation. A generation who due to their dropping reproduction numbers having fewer girls who will probably be even less willing to endure lack of freedom for dollars like their parents sacrificed.
Population growth could entirely halt by 2050, before decreasing to as little as 6 billion humans on Earth in 2100
Falling populations will make humanity older as a whole and lower the proportion of working-age people, placing an even greater burden on the young to finance health care and pensions.
The study is a follow-up to a 1972 Limits to Growth study, which warned the world of an imminent "population bomb."
in 2022, the UN estimated that the world population would reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and rise to 10.4 billion by 2100. A decade ago they estimated population of 11 billion.
The model predicted two possible outcomes - one accounts for little change in government mentality and the other accounts for some adaptation. The differences in outcome are striking, but neither results in a population growth.
It is not believed that environmental issues will change much, since the new, lower population will still consume a great deal of non-renewable energy.
Population growth could entirely halt by 2050, before decreasing to as little as 6 billion humans on Earth in 2100
Falling populations will make humanity older as a whole and lower the proportion of working-age people, placing an even greater burden on the young to finance health care and pensions.
The study is a follow-up to a 1972 Limits to Growth study, which warned the world of an imminent "population bomb."
in 2022, the UN estimated that the world population would reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and rise to 10.4 billion by 2100. A decade ago they estimated population of 11 billion.
The model predicted two possible outcomes - one accounts for little change in government mentality and the other accounts for some adaptation. The differences in outcome are striking, but neither results in a population growth.
It is not believed that environmental issues will change much, since the new, lower population will still consume a great deal of non-renewable energy.
You mention the population bomb a book that claimed the world could only sustain 1billion people before catastrophe struck.
That perfectly underlines all the predictions people make around stuff like this which ignores any corrections taken along the way as changes occur.
It's like driving down a road that has occasional turns and having a passenger that screams we're going to crash after extrapolating your current straight line direction into trees or off a cliff etc. and then you turn.
I have a few questions about the lowering population that I've never seen discussed before. Maybe I am focusing on the wrong things.
All the articles I've read have mentioned that having fewer people will cause the economy to crash, and that there won't be enough young people to take care of the older people, and all of the money will be going toward senior health care and there won't be much left for post-Boomer generations. In other words, most of the articles focus just on the economy. But what about the people themselves?
If there are smaller numbers of young people, won't there be more jobs, housing, necessities, etc., and cash, since there will be less need to ration things out? Or is it because there are fewer people working, that necessities will be harder to obtain and infrastructure will start to deteriorate/that there will be all this "stuff" around the world that would be falling apart?
What happened to the surviving people in Europe after the black plague? Or more recently, the survivors in Europe and Asia after the wars in the 20th century had eliminated much of their populations? Since there were far fewer people, how did the countries survive and rebuild? (Yes, I know a partial answer to this question--the United States helped them.). If the populations were so much smaller, how did they rebound so quickly and build up the population with even more people?
Is it necessary to have 8 billion people on Earth so that 4 billion of them can live well and the rest of them suffer and starve? (I'm just guessing on these numbers.)
You mention the population bomb a book that claimed the world could only sustain 1billion people before catastrophe struck.
That perfectly underlines all the predictions people make around stuff like this which ignores any corrections taken along the way as changes occur...............
The course never changed.
The point is The Population Bomb was wrong, and the course didn't change. People continued having fewer and fewer babies, and that is a fact The Population Bomb left out.
Actually, the Total Fertility Rate had been going down for a long time. It was at 4.9 in 1968, and prior to that point it had been higher, but wasn't really measured accurately. So it was easy to sell the idea that over-population was imminent.
Since then the TFR has dropped to pretty close to 2.1, which is replacement rate in most countries. And even using the rough figures available before the 60's we can see that the TFR has only gone down. For all of human history it has been going down, and finally - now - it has reached the magic level.
So the course didn't really change. We were always on the course we will now continue to follow.
I have a few questions about the lowering population that I've never seen discussed before. Maybe I am focusing on the wrong things.
All the articles I've read have mentioned that having fewer people will cause the economy to crash, and that there won't be enough young people to take care of the older people, and all of the money will be going toward senior health care and there won't be much left for post-Boomer generations. In other words, most of the articles focus just on the economy. But what about the people themselves?
If there are smaller numbers of young people, won't there be more jobs, housing, necessities, etc., and cash, since there will be less need to ration things out? Or is it because there are fewer people working, that necessities will be harder to obtain and infrastructure will start to deteriorate/that there will be all this "stuff" around the world that would be falling apart?
What happened to the surviving people in Europe after the black plague? Or more recently, the survivors in Europe and Asia after the wars in the 20th century had eliminated much of their populations? Since there were far fewer people, how did the countries survive and rebuild? (Yes, I know a partial answer to this question--the United States helped them.). If the populations were so much smaller, how did they rebound so quickly and build up the population with even more people?
Is it necessary to have 8 billion people on Earth so that 4 billion of them can live well and the rest of them suffer and starve? (I'm just guessing on these numbers.)
I'll address the part I highlighted.
In those years, and for the centuries after the Black Plague, women continued having a great many children. 10 and 12 children in a family were not rare.
Now, those days are gone. This has never happened before. At no time in history has TFR ever approached 2.1.
Suffering and starving:
Back in 1960 the world had 3 billion people. 50 million starved in the China Famine alone. There are probably (I am guessing) fewer starving people today than there were in 1960. Famine and poverty are more often the result of poor government decisions, than actual failure of the land to produce enough food.
The earth has the ability to feed us all. Governments screw it up.
There's a 'quiz' in today's WaPo, but one may need a subscription to take it; it's only four questions, I got three of them correct. I've underlined key items in the excerpt.
Excerpts:
Quote:
These facts suggest that lower birthrates should not be wholly unwelcome. They reflect shifts toward delayed marriage, fewer teen births, less unintended pregnancy, lower child mortality and smaller families, which are the product of higher living standards, mass education and female workforce participation. Governments should not seek to reverse this progress, but to limit the trade-offs these positive trends bring.
In that, the United States has an underappreciated advantage: immigration. The U.S. population would begin shrinking, too, if it weren’t for the too-often-derided inflow of new people. But even at current immigration levels, the U.S. population is projected to peak in 2080 and then begin declining. In a low-immigration scenario, the population could peak as early as 2043. Unlike China, a closed society in which acquiring citizenship is close to impossible, the United States can significantly increase immigration levels to stave off population declines in coming decades.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
There's a 'quiz' in today's WaPo, but one may need a subscription to take it; it's only four questions, I got three of them correct. I've underlined key items in the excerpt.
Excerpts:
The Washington Post is a poor quality source; everything they print seems to have a political agenda. For example, it's possible to be pro legal immigration, as many if not most Americans are, but anti illegal immigration. The WP writer however conflates the two with the "too-often-derided inflow of new people" crack.
The fact is that the U.S. will continue to grow, legally or illegally, because it offers good opportunities for newcomers, even today in these uncertain times.
The fact that China, Japan, Korea, and numerous other shrinking countries can't or won't admit huge numbers of migrants to offset declining birth rates is well known and portends grave problems for these countries in the future.
However, it also means they will preserve their distinctive cultures, albeit perhaps in a shrunken form. Western Europe, the U.S., and Canada on the other hand are opting for a more international atmosphere, with more hands to do the work, but at the cost of diluting their cultures.
As the world's demography shifts and adapts, likely we will see these very diverse, internationalized zones competing against islands of homogeneity, e.g. Japan. In a way, the Japan-U.S. competition has always been about an ancient, homogeneous culture versus a dynamic, diverse agglomeration of people. For a while, the Japanese seemed to be winning, but then the Americans managed to pull a fast one with the software giants of the 90s-2000s coupled with super-cheap labor in China and SE Asia, against which Japan found itself outmatched.
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.
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.
some questions
