Is This The First Time In History, the Worldwide Fertility Rates Has Been So Low? (80s, economy)
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.
My guess is this is a First in History! How about you?
It is cause for CELEBRATION... but it still isn't enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeWiseHead
At approximately 1450BC when Genesis 1-28 was written …
The Earth had about 140Million people on it.
The admonition to “Be fruitful and multiply…” so many rely upon with this topic has been taken seriously.
It has resulted in a population growth of xxx% leaving us with another 7Billion 500Million more people.
It was taken too seriously. The earth is filled by those 7,500,000,000 more.
It’s time to say mission accomplished on the point and instead to focus on the related instruction:
“…to subdue it… and rule over etc” and to take that husbandry role just as seriously.
My guess is this is a First in History! How about you?
Strictly speaking? Yes, surely.
Due to modern medicine, even what is available in the most impoverished 21st century nations, more infants born survive into adulthood to then become child-bearers themselves than in previous centuries and millennia. Thus, a lower fertility rate - much lower, really - is required to maintain a population (we're not merely maintained - globally, we're growing).
Long ago, in prehistoric times when the global human population was static, a far larger fertility rate would have been required just to maintain a steady level, due to the number of infants and children who would have died before sexual maturity.
We're moving into unprecedented times. Never before in history has humanity's population declined voluntarily.
Want a taste about what's about to happen? Look at Japan. Their population is projected to decline by one-third by 2060. And the effects will be felt long before then as the working-age population, which will drop by 35% during the same time. This has had a tremendous impact on Japan's economy, with GDP going from 6% growth to decline in a generation. https://www.tofugu.com/japan/japanes...side-emptying/
The same thing, only worse, will happen to China. And I think the results there will be far uglier. Remember the 80s when everybody thought Japan was going to be the next colossus astride the globe? People think that about China today. Yet China was already hit peak working population in 2014-15 and is now seeing that number decline. There's a maxim among China hands that the country will get old before it gets rich. That explains the country's almost frantic economic development efforts and Xi's aggressiveness in foreign policy. But it won't matter in the end. Structurally, the Chinese will see a long-term decline both in terms of their economic vitality and their place on the world stage. I think that's why Hong Kong so far hasn't become Tienamien Square, Part II, chiefly because 70% of all foreign investment in China flows through that city.
Russia? The same, only far worse. Russia is the worst of all possible worlds, a kleptocracy that faces stagnation everywhere in its economic life. It is a country with vast resources, an educated population, and an awful government. The only thing that keeps Russia on the international stage at this point is its nuclear arsenal and Vladimir Putin.
Oddly enough, aside from India, the only major countries that do not face this dilemma in its near future are the United States and Canada. During the same timeline, the United States is set to see its workforce increase by another 25%, despite showing a small decline in working-age population as a part of total population. A large part of that is due to the country's receptiveness to immigration.
So what will this mean? Either people will be working later in life or labor gets more expensive. One clue can be found in Europe after the Black Plague. The newly-empowered serfs of Europe were able to demand better wages and working conditions. Some would argue that the roots of the Renaissance lay in the turmoil of the Plague's aftermath.
Mind you, the Plague was a cataclysmic event while the lowered birth rate is a slow-motion demographic trend. But it will be a future where fewer workers have to produce for a larger percentage of the non-working. And, because we do not have large families any longer (My wife and I have three kids. It's remarkable how rare that is among our circle of acquaintances), the elderly will not have the support group of extended family to rely on. So we will likely have to rethink what it means to have a sense of community, what the role is of the elderly in our world, and how we harness technology and artificial intelligence to both take up for the decline in manpower and to keep our population connected to one another.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 10-24-2019 at 06:23 AM..
Well, what did you expect?
When was the last time you saw say a movie, promoting large families - and happy?
When was the last time you saw a movie, promoting healthy man/woman relationship?
When was last time you saw TV news showing how happy alrge families are or, praising a woman that had several children?
When was the last time government increased maternity leaves and secured jobs for them, along with financial incentives? I came form 3 years paid for leave and job secured).
You can continue this list, as I do not watch news or TV or read books or papers or partake in any social media.
Little do I see is what I mentioned and little do I see is promotion of exactly the opposite.
Well, what did you expect?
When was the last time you saw say a movie, promoting large families - and happy?
When was the last time you saw a movie, promoting healthy man/woman relationship?
When was last time you saw TV news showing how happy alrge families are or, praising a woman that had several children?
When was the last time government increased maternity leaves and secured jobs for them, along with financial incentives? I came form 3 years paid for leave and job secured).
You can continue this list, as I do not watch news or TV or read books or papers or partake in any social media.
Little do I see is what I mentioned and little do I see is promotion of exactly the opposite.
Why aren't you seeing the things you list above? You answer it yourself
Quote:
I do not watch news or TV or read books or papers or partake in any social media.
How would you know what is or isn't out there if you make no effort to learn?
Fertility as in underlying health causes preventing conception, or less people are choosing to have children?
Quote:
Total Fertility Rate
Total fertility rate (per woman)
Total fertility rate (TFR) in simple terms refers to total number of children born or likely to be born to a woman in her life time if she were subject to the prevailing rate of age-specific fertility in the population. TFR of about 2.1 children per woman is called Replacement-level fertility (UN, Population Division). This value represents the average number of children a woman would need to have to reproduce herself by bearing a daughter who survives to childbearing age. If replacement level fertility is sustained over a sufficiently long period, each generation will exactly replace itself without any need for the country to balance the population by international migration.
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.
