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.
The experts say, "No."
In fact, they point out that the fertility rate (average number of children born to each woman) has been falling for a very long time. Women fought for - and won - the right to own property, the right to vote, for equal wages, and for equal status. And as they won, the fertility rate decreased.
Women do not elect to become childless because they cannot afford to raise children; they elect to become childless because there is a better life for them with fewer or no children.
Anything less than an average of 2.1 means population decrease. And nearly every country in the world is now at less than 2.1.
Gather 6 couple-friends around the dinner table. Do you count 13 children among those couples? .... No? Then you are not unusual, because we can't, either.
So it is happening and will continue. The question is, "What will the world be like in 100 years?..... How about 150?"
How does one become an expert?
The planet can only sustain so many humans. We are destructive to the environment.
What is wrong with a better life for those being born, quality over quantity?
The infant mortality rate fell from 463 per 1000 in 1800 to 7 per 1000 in 2020. Life expectancy in the US went from 39 in the late 1800's to 78 in 2020.
Fewer children dying and people living longer today. No need for 10-12 pregnancies per women of childbearing age.
The planet can only sustain so many humans. We are destructive to the environment.
What is wrong with a better life for those being born, quality over quantity?
The infant mortality rate fell from 463 per 1000 in 1800 to 7 per 1000 in 2020. Life expectancy in the US went from 39 in the late 1800's to 78 in 2020.
Fewer children dying and people living longer today. No need for 10-12 pregnancies per women of childbearing age.
One could graduate from Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, followed by becoming an analyst for a geopolitical intelligence firm. Or one could become a demographer by studying at one of the several universities who offer advanced course in the statistical study of human population. There are probably several other methods, too.
It is widely known that human population will be falling in the future. Nothing has been found that would reverse the decline. It is also widely believed (by the experts) that the pathway to a smaller human population may be uncomfortable since human populations will age as they dwindle. Old populations, such as the ones we will see in the next 200 years, are unproductive and expensive.
The subject is not whether the population will decline, but rather what life may be like during that decline.
One could graduate from Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, followed by becoming an analyst for a geopolitical intelligence firm. Or one could become a demographer by studying at one of the several universities who offer advanced course in the statistical study of human population. There are probably several other methods, too.
It is widely known that human population will be falling in the future. Nothing has been found that would reverse the decline. It is also widely believed (by the experts) that the pathway to a smaller human population may be uncomfortable since human populations will age as they dwindle. Old populations, such as the ones we will see in the next 200 years, are unproductive and expensive.
The subject is not whether the population will decline, but rather what life may be like during that decline.
We have never seen this, worldwide populations decline. Do we have any reference for a civilization becoming extinct due to decreased births? I think what life may be like is anyone's guess. Its all speculation and conjecture. It does not take expertise to speculate discomfort when the population demographics are very lopsided.
We have never seen this, worldwide populations decline. Do we have any reference for a civilization becoming extinct due to decreased births? I think what life may be like is anyone's guess. Its all speculation and conjecture. It does not take expertise to speculate discomfort when the population demographics are very lopsided.
I think the answer to your question is, "No." This is never-before-seen territory and is due to the urbanization of families where Children become expensive and almost a luxury, the emancipation of women as they become free to pursue careers outside the home, and decline of religion where having multiple children has always been encouraged. There are probably lots of other things worked into to population decline, too, but those three items keep popping up.
We do have a reference in an experiment called Mouse Utopia. In this experiment, mice were given a perfect environment complete with food, water, and breeding partners. All went as expected and the mice thrived. But at a certain point, while there was still room to expand, the mice stopped reproducing. In the end they died down to the last mouse.
I find the experiment fascinating, but have no idea whether human behavior can be equated to mouse behavior. We are seeing some pretty strange behaviors these days, though, so there is that.
We have never seen this, worldwide populations decline. Do we have any reference for a civilization becoming extinct due to decreased births? I think what life may be like is anyone's guess. Its all speculation and conjecture. It does not take expertise to speculate discomfort when the population demographics are very lopsided.
I agree. There has never been a steady worldwide population decline. I think we are heading to 20B.
Only a world wide calamity can reverse the upward trend (plague, war, etc). Conspiracy people say that's what they will do. The elite have been wanting a steady population rate at least since 1994 when Rockefeler gave his speech at the UN dinner. They have not been able to do so.
I think the answer to your question is, "No." This is never-before-seen territory and is due to the urbanization of families where Children become expensive and almost a luxury, the emancipation of women as they become free to pursue careers outside the home, and decline of religion where having multiple children has always been encouraged. There are probably lots of other things worked into to population decline, too, but those three items keep popping up.
We do have a reference in an experiment called Mouse Utopia. In this experiment, mice were given a perfect environment complete with food, water, and breeding partners. All went as expected and the mice thrived. But at a certain point, while there was still room to expand, the mice stopped reproducing. In the end they died down to the last mouse.
I find the experiment fascinating, but have no idea whether human behavior can be equated to mouse behavior. We are seeing some pretty strange behaviors these days, though, so there is that.
IMO, women gaining control over their reproduction is more likely although economic recessions plays a factor in the decision to have a child or additional children. Most women did not want to have 5, 6, 10+ children.
The emancipation of women was in 1972? and women entered the workforce en masse in 1960. Looking at some statistics it seems the birth rate began to drop in the late 50's, had the highest rate of negative change in the late 60's and increased to a high in the late 70's where it began to decline with a few upticks. That doesn't seem to correlate with emancipation and women entering the workforce. It seems the steady decline began about 2007.
More women are getting higher educations, better paying jobs and are putting off having children until later in life. As well I believe overall our (women and mens) fertility is decreasing probably due to lifestyle; diet, medications, etc.
I will read the linked study later when I have time. It does sound interesting, thanks.
IMO, women gaining control over their reproduction is more likely although economic recessions plays a factor in the decision to have a child or additional children. Most women did not want to have 5, 6, 10+ children.
The emancipation of women was in 1972? and women entered the workforce en masse in 1960. Looking at some statistics it seems the birth rate began to drop in the late 50's, had the highest rate of negative change in the late 60's and increased to a high in the late 70's where it began to decline with a few upticks. That doesn't seem to correlate with emancipation and women entering the workforce. It seems the steady decline began about 2007.
More women are getting higher educations, better paying jobs and are putting off having children until later in life. As well I believe overall our (women and mens) fertility is decreasing probably due to lifestyle; diet, medications, etc.
I will read the linked study later when I have time. It does sound interesting, thanks.
You're welcome.
Keep in mind, any Fertility Rate less that 2.1 will result in population decline. So even though attempts by various countries have resulted in an increase in Fertility Rate, if the rate is not above 2.1 the population still falls, albeit slowly.
The comments regarding urbanization, emancipation, and religion are applied worldwide, not just in America. The arrival of women into the American workplace probably varies a lot from one region to the next, but where I was it did not occur until around 1980.
You're welcome.
Keep in mind, any Fertility Rate less that 2.1 will result in population decline. So even though attempts by various countries have resulted in an increase in Fertility Rate, if the rate is not above 2.1 the population still falls, albeit slowly.
The comments regarding urbanization, emancipation, and religion are applied worldwide, not just in America. The arrival of women into the American workplace probably varies a lot from one region to the next, but where I was it did not occur until around 1980.
I guess I was limiting my thoughts to the US. I really dont have much knowledge about society in other countries except many are way behind the US in equality.
I do think working for married women, especially mothers, lagged behind that of single women. Daycare was nearly nonexistent in some areas of the country. Women had to rely on family members. As well, employers did not want to hire someone who was going to have to leave due to pregnancy.
Sorry, but that particular notion, put forth in the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", has been thoroughly debunked. Research done for the book "Empty Planet" showed solid reasons for population decline. Those reasons include urbanization of families, decline of religion, and emancipation of women as they are free to seek out careers.
You contention that population decline happens when populations are not properly fed does not explain population decline in South Korea, Singapore, Japan, or Spain among others. Nor does it explain population growth in South Sudan (+5%), Burundi (5%), Niger (+3.5%) or Uganda (+3.3%).
Numerous studies and observations by researchers have shown the UN promotes numbers that are unsupported mathematically. So although UN numbers such as Worldometer are very often used, they are pretty meaningless except for looking backwards.
The world population will begin to reverse downward. Futurism.Com researchers say the earth is headed for a "jaw dropping" population decline. I don't know exactly who the researchers are or whether their children's name are easily pronounced. Maybe that particular issue is not very important.
The book I'm reading is "Plagues upon the earth : disease and the course of human history" by Kyle Harper
The basic premise is when food increases population increases, etc. Of course, before food increases, you need to have technological improvements and they have to be accepted and acted upon. There are all sorts of things that come into play here.
The same thing with population reduction. Less food, less people. And what comes into play here is less food means disease and death come hand in hand. At the same time, disease epidemics can cause famines and of course, population decreases in themselves.
It's a book that was published in 2021, so pretty recent. It's a read - 500 some pages and it doesn't dumb down to anyone. This is from the author's webpage:
"I am a historian interested in the ways that humanity has shaped nature and vice versa. I hold the G.T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty and am Professor of Classics and Letters, Senior Advisor to the President, and Provost Emeritus at my alma mater, the University of Oklahoma.
I have written four books. My first, Slavery in the Late Roman World, was published in 2011 and awarded the James Henry Breasted Prize. My second book, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality, appeared in 2013 and received the Award for Excellence in Historical Studies from the American Academy of Religion. The third, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, was first published in 2017 and subsequently translated into 12 languages. My latest, Plagues upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History, is a global history of infectious disease spanning from human origins to COVID-19. It draws from a range of disciplines, including the natural sciences, to tell the story of humanity’s long and distinctive struggle with pathogenic microbes. It was the 2021 PROSE winner for best book in the history of science, technology, and medicine."
So now when Elon Musk has references like this, then I might pay him some attention.
The book I'm reading is "Plagues upon the earth : disease and the course of human history" by Kyle Harper
The basic premise is when food increases population increases, etc. Of course, before food increases, you need to have technological improvements and they have to be accepted and acted upon. There are all sorts of things that come into play here.
The same thing with population reduction. Less food, less people. And what comes into play here is less food means disease and death come hand in hand. At the same time, disease epidemics can cause famines and of course, population decreases in themselves.
It's a book that was published in 2021, so pretty recent. It's a read - 500 some pages and it doesn't dumb down to anyone. This is from the author's webpage:
"I am a historian interested in the ways that humanity has shaped nature and vice versa. I hold the G.T. and Libby Blankenship Chair in the History of Liberty and am Professor of Classics and Letters, Senior Advisor to the President, and Provost Emeritus at my alma mater, the University of Oklahoma.
I have written four books. My first, Slavery in the Late Roman World, was published in 2011 and awarded the James Henry Breasted Prize. My second book, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality, appeared in 2013 and received the Award for Excellence in Historical Studies from the American Academy of Religion. The third, The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, was first published in 2017 and subsequently translated into 12 languages. My latest, Plagues upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History, is a global history of infectious disease spanning from human origins to COVID-19. It draws from a range of disciplines, including the natural sciences, to tell the story of humanity’s long and distinctive struggle with pathogenic microbes. It was the 2021 PROSE winner for best book in the history of science, technology, and medicine."
So now when Elon Musk has references like this, then I might pay him some attention.
Recognizing that you have not yet finished the book, does the author make any attempt to cover such things as birth rate or Total fertility Rate (TFR) and the trends those two measurements are taking now?
The reason I ask it because both those metrics have been trending down for a number of years, and it doesn't seem like we have any sort of food shortage - at least not in most countries. Haiti - listed as the world's hungriest - has a stubbornly high TFR of 2.7. One would think the poorest, hungriest nation would have the lowest TFR, but that distinction goes to Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore - countries which are all doing well.
Thanks.
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.
