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.
So, taking the falling sperm counts in men, the falling birth rates, the pregnancy losses, these all run into each other. I do think people are "trying" hard to maintain the population - that aspect will never decline because sex is fun. It is just that the environmental factors are pitted against humans increasing at the rate they were. There will be fewer pregnancy 'hits' and more 'misses'.
There will have to be a different government model and a different economic and labour model in order for the economies of the world to survive and thrive, but I have no doubt some clever person will propose a few different models to try. Thats what it will be - countries trying out different models to find what works.
Looking at the human race from the Earth's point of view, we are a plague on the face of the Earth at the moment.
Looking at the human race from the Earth's point of view, we are a plague on the face of the Earth at the moment.
This. A population decline is quite possibly the best thing we could do not only for the planet, but for our own longterm survival on the planet.
Give it time to heal some of the wounds.
Besides, who doesn't like ghost towns? There's something very intriguing about entering an abandoned house.
and with the current rude elbow jabbing manners of many, from road rage to every other unpleasantry, more open land, more renewable resources, less fishermen fights, no elbow jabbing on Everest, it's all good. Cut the population in half and see if that's enough, if not, go further.
This. A population decline is quite possibly the best thing we could do not only for the planet, but for our own longterm survival on the planet.
Give it time to heal some of the wounds.
Besides, who doesn't like ghost towns? There's something very intriguing about entering an abandoned house.
and with the current rude elbow jabbing manners of many, from road rage to every other unpleasantry, more open land, more renewable resources, less fishermen fights, no elbow jabbing on Everest, it's all good. Cut the population in half and see if that's enough, if not, go further.
Clearly, governments cannot control population growth. They have tried nearly everything. The only thing that seems to have worked is back when China prohibited families from have more than one child and punished people when they violated policy. Now, they can't get women started again (serves them right).
Clearly, governments cannot control population growth. They have tried nearly everything. The only thing that seems to have worked is back when China prohibited families from have more than one child and punished people when they violated policy. Now, they can't get women started again (serves them right).
The thing is...someone has to try out new ideas to see if they work. OK, so this one didnt and had long term effects on the economy.
Everyone makes mistakes and recognising that is part of just being a nice person. We are ALL liable to make mistakes - even governments too because governments are made up of people. It only serves to divide us by rubbing our nose in our mistakes.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 12-26-2021 at 05:32 PM..
Reason: Removed personal comment. Don't make rude personal comments about others here.
Clearly, governments cannot control population growth. They have tried nearly everything. The only thing that seems to have worked is back when China prohibited families from have more than one child and punished people when they violated policy. Now, they can't get women started again (serves them right).
Less people means less destruction of the planet. Humans are insatiable, greedy, and selfish. Never did I suggest a government mandate birth rates, although I see zero reason to have financial subsidies for those who procreate in vast numbers, like the US federal income tax for those who have 11 children is zero.
The entire capitalist philosophy of that everything must go up, stock values must always increase, is unsustainable. It's a failed system because something or somebody must be squeezed somewhere to make it happen. Simply being sustainable without constant growth would be a far more rational plan. This is true for the planet and renewable resources. In that regard, I am a socialist.
The thing is...someone has to try out new ideas to see if they work. OK, so this one didnt and had long term effects on the economy............
The discussion is the long term effect of China's One-Child policy. The Chinese government evidently believed they could regulate fertility rate both downward and upward and that proved to be not the case.
Other governments in other places - Singapore, Brazil, Korea, Russia - have tried various government policies in order to stimulate population growth and all have failed. The emancipation of women, urbanization of families, loosening of religious ties (especially Catholicism), and medical advances have all led to dropping fertility rates and as a result the world's population will be diminishing.
That's a fact and I would think everyone would welcome a discussion of what this new world will look like.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 12-26-2021 at 05:34 PM..
Reason: Deleted your reference to poster's rudeness (which was also deleted). Please report such posts instead of commenting on them.
OK.
So what do you think this new world, say, with only 3.5B people, will look like in terms of governments and human activity?
A return to smaller, more localized units of interdependency would be good. I believe that would help with self-esteem, safety, honesty in commerce, many of our social problems.
In spite of all the human advances people seem dissatisfied, unhealthy, actually. I rarely see the human intangible needs discussed in matters of conditions and yet they may be the most important factor of all.
The focus on materialism and growth doesn't seem to produce much human satisfaction.
New technology will enable longer lifespans and fewer premature deaths. I don't think we'll see a significant population decline until well beyond 2200, that's 178 years from now. 178 years ago we were building the first railroad systems and the Steamboat was a fairly new invention.
It's likely we'll hit a/the technological singularity long before we need to worry about population decline. I think it's quite likely that people will be able to electronically copy themselves and live essentially deathless lives. It's also likely that A.I. and robotics will be feasible replacements to most or all human labor long before then.
I think it's very unlikely that what little physical reproduction of humans (with bodies) there is will take place inside a live human's womb, as that will be seen as a disgusting, dangerous, and pointless exercise in self-abuse. Physical reproduction will take place invitro all the way from conception to birth, and will likely be curated by medical nanotechnology to prevent defects.
Wouldn't the advent of the technological singularity completely eliminate any need for reproduction as it would allow people to effectively live forever or lead 'deathless lives' as you put it?
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.
).