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.
Originally Posted by Listener2307 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
Barring a major pandemic (one much more deadly than COVID) or world war, that is a complete fallacy. If only it were true, that would be a good thing. There are too many people on this planet for us to live sustainably. We are destroying the very life systems on earth due to the resource demands of so many people. The U.S. shouldn't be the overpopulation pressure relief valve for countries like China, India and Mexico (where many of our immigrants are coming from). We should curtail immigration from those countries so they can deal with their overpopulation problems. China started to do so with the one-child policy, but it looks like they may be reversing course. That would be unfortunate. We'd be much better off with half of today's population. We should have started to address the problem 50 years ago. The delay will only make the transition more difficult, but it still needs to happen. We need far fewer people on this planet if we're going to have any semblance of a quality life. Otherwise, things will only get worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan
We'd be much better off with half of today's population.
There are 20 countries that in 77 years will be able to know first hand, if what you say is true.
“However, most countries outside of Africa will see shrinking workforces and inverting population pyramids, which will have profound negative consequences for the economy.”
btw: it isn't the amount of people that is the problem with sustaining the human habitat, but the technology of the people that is destroying the atmosphere, plant life and fresh water on earth. Humans are destructive creatures. They always have been; even when the earth was new. As destructive as humans are, they are also, resilient, even if they tend to be a bit slow on the uptake.
This video is more for serious students of the subject since it is over an hour long.
Stephen J Shaw is a data analyst who has studied and written on the subject of population decline. In this interview he hits on several key points.
First, the silence of population decrease is discussed. No one really becomes alarmed and they often retreat into their comfort zones, saying, "Well that's a good thing. There are too many of us anyway" and so forth.
Birth rate is discussed and one of the most important takeaways is the fact that 1.9 sounds the same as 1.8, but it's not. Population shift happens 700 years faster when the TFR is 1.8.
Then there is the question of whether women want to have children.. The answer to that one is very surprising. Mothers, it is pointed out, still have the same number of children. Childlessness is actually a driving factor, but what causes childlessness?
It is presented in chapters, so it can be viewed in stages.
Protest in South Korea in regards to raising the minimal work hours. In France there is protest against increasing the age of retirement. I imagine such protests will increase globally as countries pass new legislation to combat the affects of an aging society with fewer births.
Protest in South Korea in regards to raising the minimal work hours. In France there is protest against increasing the age of retirement. I imagine such protests will increase globally as countries pass new legislation to combat the affects of an aging society with fewer births.
........
I think so, too. Countries are going to try all sorts of things to make the population and GDP grow, but I don't expect any of the efforts to result in much.
The harder the country pushes for women's equality, the lower the fertility rate goes! That's because -as was explained in the above video - women postpone child bearing until the "time is right" and the first thing they know the window of opportunity closed. They mostly "planned" to have children, but either never got married, or never made enough money or the marriage ended.
The opening paragraph pretty much confirmed everything the long video did:
Quote:
Yun-Jeong Kim grew up imagining what her future family would look like — married with several kids, a nice home and a dog. But when the lease on her apartment in Seoul, South Korea, became too much to afford, she found herself somewhere she'd never imagined: 31 years old and living back at home with her younger brother and their parents.
Young women start off wanting children, but by the time they get themselves situated to make it so, it is too late. If a woman does not have a child by age 30, the chances she ever will go way down.
According to THIS CHART, South Korea peaked at around 51M with 37M working age, and by 2070 will decline to 37M with 17M working age.
It demonstrates the problem perfectly. The population drops from 51M to 37M. But the working age population plunges - from 37M to 17M in only 50 years.
Working age is 15 to 64 years old. So actual workers will always be less.
Apply this to the world wide population, or even to Chinese population and the results are pretty graphic.
Speaking as someone with a background in Conservation- there are too many humans on the planet.
Sorry.
Population control is for the good of all.
That, above all, should be the focus of any discussion about population. We need to reach a population level which is sustainable on this planet. That will entail reducing the human population significantly. Unfortunately, we have avoided the issue for the past 50+ years when we could have taken reasonable steps to curtail the exploding population which we have seen. Even more unfortunately, the population will continue to increase for the next 60 years or so. The world's population is NOT declining! We should welcome localized reductions in population--not try to reverse them--since that is the way to go if we are to have any quality of life. Delaying further will only make the needed transition more difficult to deal with since, admittedly, there will be some disruptions. But any disruption pales in comparison to the wholesale devastation of this planet which will continue to occur if our human population is not reduced, sooner rather than later. Overpopulation is the root cause of all of our environmental problems, from habitat loss to climate change.
Young women start off wanting children, but by the time they get themselves situated to make it so, it is too late. If a woman does not have a child by age 30, the chances she ever will go way down.
Then we need to start working towards a society where it is reasonably possible to be in a stable situation by the time she is 30. If the choice with an age 30 deadline is stability/no children or children/poverty/chaos, you can't expect the majority of women to choose the latter.
I am one of those women whose first priority was "getting myself situated". My parents encouraged that. I was 37 when I had my son. It was not hard to look around and see women around me who had children young, and how it often trapped them in non-ideal situations - financially and with respect to freedom to choose their own or a different path. We need to lose this romanticized notion that given the choice, all women just want to spend our lives rearing children and nurturing and caregiving for other people. We want the same/similar things men do - and that includes both parenting and non-parenting opportunities (careers, hobbies, etc).
Speaking as someone with a background in Conservation- there are too many humans on the planet.
Sorry.
Population control is for the good of all.
True enough, perhaps, but we are not talking about population control.
We are talking about population collapse - the utter collapse of working age population - which will be synonymous with economic collapse. The case was shown in South Korea, but can also be shown in China.
You will not like the world you have wished for. Some countries will, in time, become ungoverned as their governments cease to function. If you think pollution is bad today, you should review the London smog of 1952, when over 4,000 people died.
The world population in 1952 was 2.6B. Clearly, population reduction alone will not do the trick. Your zealotry with regard to conservation may make you feel good, but solves nothing.
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.
