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.
That's what a great many people say. It's very common to hear, "I think women will start having children again", but no one can say why that would happen.
I have - my point is it's an iterative process. You're looking at aggregate level statistics and straight lining which point to declines.
Obesity is a great example. It was rare until recently. Then in the last 100 years it exploded. Until 1980-90 it was uncorrelated with income, then after that point it became strongly correlated with income, where high income individuals are much less likely to become obese than low income ones. Just taking the trend lines from 1920-2020 and straightlining, you'd expect most every person in the US to be obese by 2100. I don't think anyone thinks that 90% of Americans will be obese in 2100. Looking at the subgroups you can see lot's of variation happening despite what's going on with the whole.
Its the same thing with kids. The kids of todays kids are a different subset of people than todays parents. Just like with obesity, I think kids will become associated with income where upper middle class / upper class people will have the means to afford them comfortably and it will become a positive things to have kids in a world that's different than ours, where population decline is noticeable instead of the inevitable rise we have now.
FWIW I think being childless and being obese is probably a decent correlation as well.
I have - my point is it's an iterative process. You're looking at aggregate level statistics and straight lining which point to declines.
Obesity is a great example. It was rare until recently. Then in the last 100 years it exploded. Until 1980-90 it was uncorrelated with income, then after that point it became strongly correlated with income, where high income individuals are much less likely to become obese than low income ones. Just taking the trend lines from 1920-2020 and straightlining, you'd expect most every person in the US to be obese by 2100. I don't think anyone thinks that 90% of Americans will be obese in 2100. Looking at the subgroups you can see lot's of variation happening despite what's going on with the whole.
Its the same thing with kids. The kids of todays kids are a different subset of people than todays parents. Just like with obesity, I think kids will become associated with income where upper middle class / upper class people will have the means to afford them comfortably and it will become a positive things to have kids in a world that's different than ours, where population decline is noticeable instead of the inevitable rise we have now.
FWIW I think being childless and being obese is probably a decent correlation as well.
The decrease in fertility rate is not iterative at all. It has only declined throughout history. Never increased. Certain wiggles in the line are explained by local history such as France during WW1, when fertility rate fell as a result of huge numbers of young men being killed, but world wide fertility rate has never before been this low and has never in history trended upward.
If prosperity would bring an increase fertility rate I would expect to see it in Singapore, but fertility rate there is 1.2 or perhaps Luxembourg, where fertility rate is only 1.4.
In fact, it seems the opposite is true; it seems the wealthier the population, the lower the fertility rate.
The same 3 factors cause lower total fertility rates everywhere - emancipation of women; urbanization of families; decline of religion.
The populations of most countries will become poorer in the future as a greater and greater portion of their income must be used to support a huge aging population. When we find ourselves further along the
exponential decline curve (it looks like an airplane descending steeply into a landing) populations may become a bit more comfortable, but that point may be 150 years in the future, and many of today's countries will have become dysfunctional.
The decrease in fertility rate is not iterative at all. It has only declined throughout history. Never increased. Certain wiggles in the line are explained by local history such as France during WW1, when fertility rate fell as a result of huge numbers of young men being killed, but world wide fertility rate has never before been this low and has never in history trended upward.
If prosperity would bring an increase fertility rate I would expect to see it in Singapore, but fertility rate there is 1.2 or perhaps Luxembourg, where fertility rate is only 1.4.
In fact, it seems the opposite is true; it seems the wealthier the population, the lower the fertility rate.
The same 3 factors cause lower total fertility rates everywhere - emancipation of women; urbanization of families; decline of religion.
The populations of most countries will become poorer in the future as a greater and greater portion of their income must be used to support a huge aging population. When we find ourselves further along the
exponential decline curve (it looks like an airplane descending steeply into a landing) populations may become a bit more comfortable, but that point may be 150 years in the future, and many of today's countries will have become dysfunctional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
The decrease in fertility rate is not iterative at all. It has only declined throughout history.
I was reading this today from the Census.gov website:
"Slower population growth has been a trend in the United States for several years, the result of decreasing fertility and net international migration, combined with increasing mortality due to an aging population.
In other words, since the mid-2010’s, births and net international migration have been declining at the same time deaths have been increasing. The collective impact of these trends is slower population growth."
On a more global scale they have this, but I haven't dug into it:
I'm glad I'm not alone in finding this fascinating ... I've been following the trend for about 13 years now. And I don't think women will start having children again. At least not in developed countries where values in lifestyles has changed.
.....................I'm glad I'm not alone in finding this fascinating ... I've been following the trend for about 13 years now. And I don't think women will start having children again. At least not in developed countries where values in lifestyles has changed.
I'd be interested in hearing your view of what will unfold during the next 100 and even 200 years.
Care to make a stab at it?
The decrease in fertility rate is not iterative at all. It has only declined throughout history. Never increased. Certain wiggles in the line are explained by local history such as France during WW1, when fertility rate fell as a result of huge numbers of young men being killed, but world wide fertility rate has never before been this low and has never in history trended upward.
If prosperity would bring an increase fertility rate I would expect to see it in Singapore, but fertility rate there is 1.2 or perhaps Luxembourg, where fertility rate is only 1.4.
In fact, it seems the opposite is true; it seems the wealthier the population, the lower the fertility rate.
The same 3 factors cause lower total fertility rates everywhere - emancipation of women; urbanization of families; decline of religion.
The populations of most countries will become poorer in the future as a greater and greater portion of their income must be used to support a huge aging population. When we find ourselves further along the
exponential decline curve (it looks like an airplane descending steeply into a landing) populations may become a bit more comfortable, but that point may be 150 years in the future, and many of today's countries will have become dysfunctional.
You have to look at all the variables though. Yes fertility rate has been declining, but it's only been the last 100-150 years that we could have lower fertility rates and not have population decline. And we've never had a situation in modern times where we've had sustained significant population losses. You can't say people will behave the same with widespread declines as they do where it's increasing. We really don't have any historical context for the situation we are in now, and straightlining has been proven wrong and wrong again from most doomsayers (like Malthus) who did it.
Income has historically been correlated with lower fertility, but what about wealth? Once generational wealth accumulates, climbing the ladder will be less important and people will prioritize careers less. Singapore is where someone goes to climb the ladder, it's not where they go once they've got to where they want to be on the ladder. It's a workaholic culture, so what do you expect?
People report that they want more kids than they have. Income / wealth / environment etc will all change significantly in the next 100 years. If it's hardships of life that prevent more kids, those factors will change. It would only be a widespread death of desire to have kids that would sustain low fertility rates, and I don't think we can say that that is present.
... I'm glad I'm not alone in finding this fascinating ... I've been following the trend for about 13 years now. And I don't think women will start having children again. At least not in developed countries where values in lifestyles has changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
I'd be interested in hearing your view of what will unfold during the next 100 and even 200 years.
Care to make a stab at it?
I did in my post here, however, it was threads on c-d that brought it to my attention to the shrinking population, soon after I joined. In RL I discussed my findings with my x-husband on it; in his opinion he thought we might be putting to much radiation into the air thus causing fertility issues among both men and women. I love a good conspiracy, so I kept looking into what authorities might have on the issue.
Most would speculate, that the reduction in fertilization rates were due to changes in people's lifestyles. Women looking for college careers (an article I read in India stated that) rather than a husband to marry and have a family; the young adult girls were looking a job opportunities instead. So basically woman have taken control of their reproduction, through birth control and/or offerings of abortion.
In under developed countries (liken to ME countries) the woman are tied to a husband as that is still adhered to within their culture in a traditional family sense.
So what the authorities that I have read on the subject remarks on the poor (and undeveloped countries) are the ones that continue to repopulate, I see it as Darwinism. Where as the ones with the most it seems are really the ones with fewer offspring, eventually they will die away and the ones at the bottom begin to move up in the ranks. Same with developed countries as their economies will begin to suffer ... undeveloped countries grow to becoming more developed ones. As they will continue to give birth and their offspring become skilled and problem solvers ...
Or one might see it as Christ said in His sermon on the mount --- 'the meek shall inherit the earth'.
However, 200 years and humans have failed at being fruitful and multiplying one good disease (pandemic every 50-100 years) could wipe everyone out and at that point, it would be game over. If one man and one woman survive though it might be, start over, rather than game over ... if that is the case or if people are still here in some fashion as they are today, one can only hope that they become a bit more appreciative of each other, than we are today and that they don't repeat the same tired old mistakes. And perhaps a child would be of greater value to them.
If Newton's laws of motion in correlation to the earth and sun (with each rotation the earth moves closer to the sun) is correct, in time it may not matter a whole hell of a lot.
The other thing one might look at, is science in the reproduction business, ... as artificial wombs are making their debut. In 200 years science just may solve the issue. However, if nature takes its course, imo, we are done and no amount of science can help with that.
The global population will begin to shrink very soon, perhaps as soon as 10 years. And once it begins to decline, it will never stop declining. That's a fact, according to some demographers. They make a pretty compelling case for the ever-shrinking human population in the book Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline. Their case, in simple terms, revolves around the emancipation of women and urbanization. It's more complicated than that, though, so interested parties should read the book or some of the many articles written about the subject.
Many countries are already on the decline and many more will join. Some governments will collapse - I mean cease to exist! There simply will not be enough people living in Bulgaria (to pick one) to support a government. Italy has noted that it is a dying country already.
So what will the world be like in 100 years? IN 2200, it is projected that the world will have about the same population as we do today, but the population will be much older. And old people (I am one) are not productive. We become a burden on our countries....
It will shrink down to a point that women feel safe giving birth and then the whole cycle will repeat. Half a million start reproducing until we reach 8 billion again in 400 years or so.
It will shrink down to a point that women feel safe giving birth and then the whole cycle will repeat. Half a million start reproducing until we reach 8 billion again in 400 years or so.
Feel safe giving birth? More like 'afford' to give birth as in the economic conditions of the countries are as such that people can not afford children. Before birth control that wouldn't have mattered (even though abortion still took out many), however, now women are more in control of their reproductive cycles. If economic trends continue, 400 years it will be worse than today.
Reports indicate that woman in developed countries are more inclined to have careers than babies. In undeveloped countries many are still practicing the traditional family values with one marriage and several children. Even within the developed countries the poor population continue to have more children than their counterparts. Not having children does not increase their social status. Factoring in those numbers we are at a global birth replacement rate of 2.4; with countries below replacement level births.
Historically the traditional family would have children so as to continue the family business be it farming or what have you, but the idea is that children would support their elderly parents. Even our programs for the elderly (SS) are set up on the same premise in the the children working and paying taxes will help to fund their parent's retirement. With fewer children, that puts those programs at risk of going bust, if they're not bust already.
A change in traditional family values and a change in economic conditions are the deciding factors in the global population. However, one cannot dismiss the population control folks that believe that under population will somehow increase their revenue/resources/financial status. They are around in all countries with influence on policies within the countries.
Feel safe giving birth? More like 'afford' to give birth as in the economic conditions of the countries are as such that people can not afford children. Before birth control that wouldn't have mattered (even though abortion still took out many), however, now women are more in control of their reproductive cycles. If economic trends continue, 400 years it will be worse than today.
Reports indicate that woman in developed countries are more inclined to have careers than babies. In undeveloped countries many are still practicing the traditional family values with one marriage and several children. Even within the developed countries the poor population continue to have more children than their counterparts. Not having children does not increase their social status. Factoring in those numbers we are at a global birth replacement rate of 2.4; with countries below replacement level births.
Historically the traditional family would have children so as to continue the family business be it farming or what have you, but the idea is that children would support their elderly parents. Even our programs for the elderly (SS) are set up on the same premise in the the children working and paying taxes will help to fund their parent's retirement. With fewer children, that puts those programs at risk of going bust, if they're not bust already.
A change in traditional family values and a change in economic conditions are the deciding factors in the global population. However, one cannot dismiss the population control folks that believe that under population will somehow increase their revenue/resources/financial status. They are around in all countries with influence on policies within the countries.
That's what I meant--feel safe financially giving birth. Bad syntax
It's a false premise, I think--the idea that once the population starts shrinking there's no stopping it. Women will always reproduce unless some weird event renders them sterile.
That's what I meant--feel safe financially giving birth. Bad syntax
It's a false premise, I think--the idea that once the population starts shrinking there's no stopping it. Women will always reproduce unless some weird event renders them sterile.
You have to be partially right. Women WILL always reproduce. The world is simply too large and populations too diverse for extinction to be anywhere on the horizon. So we're not going to disappear.
But the population decline will go on for so long that actual extinction will be a moot point. Here's a graph of exponential decay. Just take a glance at it; no need for math, just sort of understand how it works.
If the world population declines 1% per year - and it will, starting very soon - then in 70 years the population of the world will be 1/2 what it is today. Call it the year 2100. 4B people.
And in another 70 years it will be half of that. 2170 there will be 1/4 of the people there are today. 2B people. Let's agree the exact year will be off one way or the other, but the math simply cannot lie.
And so forth.
The number of people is not the problem. 2B people would be plenty to insure survival. The problem is, 2B people will not be able to maintain the infrastructure and governments that have been long established. Some countries and regions, like Asia, will lose population faster than others and some countries will simply cease to function.
200 years ago, people were climbing over each other's backs to explore the planet and settle in new areas and develop new ideas. America was being settled. Africa was being exploited. Industrial Revolution! Railroads!
200 years from now I expect there will have been an Industrial Collapse. There will be thousands upon thousands of items which simply can no longer be manufactured or maintained. I'm not particularly worried about it, but on the other hand it may not be just a whole lot of fun for a lot of people. Our current supply chain difficulty is a precursor to something much, much worse.
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.
