[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

Finally, some good news! World overpopulation is the biggest threat to this planet as all environmental problems are rooted in overpopulation. Now if we can just get those other countries and cultures to increase education levels, provide equal rights to women, provide adequate health care and hope for the future, then perhaps they can reduce their birth rates as well. We need to reduce human population levels if we're ever going to live sustainably on this planet.

You do realize without a continous amount of young people eventually local populations begin to decline if not collapse; you know this, don't you?

All over Europe you have entire towns, villages or whatever that are nearly empty save a handful of older people. Things are so bad there are places in Italy that are offering to pay people to move to their town, and or giving them free houses.

Despite all the moaning masses of refugees arriving in Italy has had one direct positive benefit; local areas that were once nearly deserted and on their way to being ghost towns/abandoned, are now full of younger persons including children.

More to the point without younger workers who is going to pay the taxes and otherwise provide for seniors and the elderly?

There is a reason why vastly all nursing assistants and many other jobs are filled with immigrants, refugees, and or minorities. No one else wants those jobs, and or there simply aren't enough qualified applicants.

On another note near and dear to many on this board and elsewhere; there is a reason why white/European populations both in North America and Europe are declining; women of that demographic for several decades now just aren't interested in having large numbers of infants. If they have one or two that is saying something, but those "replacement" births don't help sustain demographic populations.

If woman only has two children it simply replaces herself and the father in terms of numbers. What societies require are three, four, five, or more children (who live until adulthood and have children of their own) to create stable populations.

Were it not for all the various non-white immigrants into Europe nearly every country in west would have serious negative birth rates. Even in eastern Europe places like Poland, Russia, Ukraine, etc... are beginning to see declines in native "white" birth rates.

Areas of USA are already seeing whites as minority demographic, and unless something drastic happens entire country will go that route in just a few more generations.

Teddy Roosevelt over one hundred years ago called out white Protestants (mainly his own class of wealthy) for committing "genetic suicide" by engaging in family planning, and or choosing not to have children at all.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

If woman only has two children it simply replaces herself and the father in terms of numbers. What societies require are three, four, five, or more children (who live until adulthood and have children of their own) to create stable populations.

Incorrect, TFR greater than an average of two is responsible for population growth, not stable growth. In terms of US demographic trends, there are many rural counties that have a higher percentage of the population over age 65 than under age 18. Younger people and families have largely left for metro areas that have far greater levels of diversified employment and earning potential. Younger people are being priced out of owning homes or starting a family until their 30s for the most part, especially factoring in debt load and related factors.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Incorrect, TFR greater than an average of two is responsible for population growth, not stable growth.

2.0 :1 isn't even stability. Infant mortality, etc means that over a generation the population will decrease if every woman has a pair of babies. Per every 1000 american births, 6.5 of those babies don't survive 12 months (0.65%). With no immigrants, if every millineal has 2.0 babies, the 83.1M will have 82.56M babies (540,150 will die in the first year)

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by 313 TUxedo

If you're young, it IS the economy - specifically, the rapidly accelerating cost of housing and stagnant wages.

Part (not all) of that is increasing expectations. In the 1960s and 1970s (even into the 1980s) a +/- 900 s.f. house was pretty standard. Now, that would be considered a shack and unacceptable for most families. Now a house without air conditioning is unacceptable. A one car garage is unacceptable. If you insist on a 2500 s.f. air-conditioned house with a three car garage, yes, it will be a lot less affordable because you are demanding a lot more. Most of those old 900 s.f. homes are still pretty affordable in most locations (excluding California and New York). Now factor in that you also need funds for an 800 cell phone for each person and about 600 a month in cell/data charges, 150 a month in charges for cable TV and internet, a $2500 gaming computer, etc. Yes, with current expectations for what is now considered an adequate lifestyle, it is very hard to afford an acceptable home. the lifestyle average people lived int eh 1960s - 1980s is still pretty affordable. It is as much increased demand as increased costs that are the problem.

Cars are he same way. If you could buy a new 1978 equivalent car now, it would be very affordable. It would not have: 21 Air bags; Bluetooth; navigation; 300 h.p. and 30 mpg; electric windows and door locks; computerized injection and ignition systems; dual zone climate control, seven speaker stereo system; low tire detectors; auto dimming mirrors; electric seats; traction control; abs; etc. without all these expensive things, a car would likely cost less than $10,000 which is less than $3000 in 1978 money. IN other words, equivalent cars today would be cheaper than in 1978 in equivalent dollars. Cars have not gotten more expensive as much as they have gotten fancier. We no longer need to learnt o drive and stop properly or figure out directions, our cars do it for us. They are better now. However that better lifestyle comes with a price.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

2.0 :1 isn't even stability. Infant mortality, etc means that over a generation the population will decrease if every woman has a pair of babies. Per every 1000 american births, 6.5 of those babies don't survive 12 months (0.65%). With no immigrants, if every millineal has 2.0 babies, the 83.1M will have 82.56M babies (540,150 will die in the first year)

Read again, I did not state 2.0, I said greater than 2- so a TFR of 2.99 would certainly result in population growth of a sizable proportion. Just go out to Utah and see the example of that.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Cars are he same way. If you could buy a new 1978 equivalent car now, it would be very affordable. It would not have: 21 Air bags; Bluetooth; navigation; 300 h.p. and 30 mpg; electric windows and door locks; computerized injection and ignition systems; dual zone climate control, seven speaker stereo system; low tire detectors; auto dimming mirrors; electric seats; traction control; abs; etc. without all these expensive things, a car would likely cost less than $10,000 which is less than $3000 in 1978 money. IN other words, equivalent cars today would be cheaper than in 1978 in equivalent dollars. Cars have not gotten more expensive as much as they have gotten fancier. We no longer need to learnt o drive and stop properly or figure out directions, our cars do it for us. They are better now. However that better lifestyle comes with a price.

A 79 Civic hatchback started at $4499. Which is $18,500 last month. The sedan was $3999 - $16500 now.
The much bigger 2020 Civic starts at $20,500, $20,950 for a coupe. The new civic is bigger than a 79 Accord, more efficient, safer, more comfortable, more luxurious, etc for just $4000!

Opposite: TVs. In 1976 a 25" Zenith TV cost $599! In 1976 dollars!!!

[tijlover]

Michigan is not alone! It's been estimated, without the immigrants, the U.S. fertility rate would be just a tad higher than Europe's: 1.7. A 2.3 fertility rate is the ideal for any country.

In China, when they finally allowed women to have 2 children, instead of one, and when they polled these women as to whether or not they'd have a second child, 70% said No Way! China is going to have a mammoth aging population some day. Unsustainable?

In Japan, with their low fertility rate, how would you like to open up a business there, with only 1.2 applicants per job? But they're banking on robots to take up the slack. They already have robotic caregivers for the elderly, and robotic sex workers in the Geisha district.

Mexico is also going to face a large aging population as well, and will Mexico, eventually, build a wall along the U.S. border to keep its citizens inside?

In Iran, when the fertility rate fell to 1.8, the Iranian leader was quick to ban vasectomies.

France has had some success in raising its fertility rate, at quite an expense to the taxpayers: free child care and free train tickets.

What' really worries me about the falling fertility rates around the world, sans Africa, and the U.S., is what would happen if there were a worldwide plague, who would be around to maintain our infrastructure, notably nuclear power plants?

[keraT]

wow china and India is in green. I always thought there was overpopulation in those 2 countries.


Think of it this way, with global warming, we will lose good portion of land to underwater. Then we will have to share what little land we have. the less people there are, the better we can share

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by keraT

wow china and India is in green. I always thought there was overpopulation in those 2 countries.


Think of it this way, with global warming, we will lose good portion of land to underwater. Then we will have to share what little land we have. the less people there are, the better we can share

There is more than enough land, especially if current desert or frozen regions become arable land in the changing climate. OTOH if more area becomes desert or frozen and more land goes underwater, then we might have to start moving people underwater or put buildings and roads on pilings over the water. Right now, the entire world population could live in Texas (at least according to an article I read in a science magazine). You just have to put the cows and lakes, and reservoirs, and corn and plums and pistaciaos and pig someplace else.

[keraT]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

It's not the economy.

It's just a simple fact of industrialized nations. The richer and more "advanced" a country is, the lower the birth rate. Any family that has lived in one of those countries for a couple generations (I think data shows the first generation) has a birth rate lower than the replacement rate. The ONLY reason Europe, US, Canada, Japan, Australia, NZ, Korea grow is immigration. Korea has a fertility rate of 1.1. Japan has been below replacement since 1974.

Every country in blue below have a fertility rate BELOW replacement. And that includes immigrant families

I wonder if anyone read anything on the reverse effect on birth rate. If a family migrates from industrialized nation to one with very high birth rate, will these people or their kids (1st generation immigrant) have higher birth rate? I am 1st generation & so are most of my friends. Most of us have on average 4 siblings, so that's how many our parents had. The number hasn't changed too much or changed a lot depending on how you look at it. Most of my friends (in mid 30's) are up to 2 kids with first batch of girls having their 3rd babies this year only. Not sure how many will follow in coming years but 2 is average now because there are plenty without kids or 1 baby. Many did have to get fertility treatment which wasn't common during our parents generation.


I wonder how much of the lower birth rate is environment as in health, the food we eat
vs. how much is culture as in, ain't nobody got time for that many kids & people look down up on big families