Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-29-2014, 10:53 AM
 
3,065 posts, read 8,915,069 times
Reputation: 2092

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin View Post


The relationship between wealth and fertility rate is complex. It is believed that the most important reason why China has a healthier economy than India is that their fertility rate is sub replacement. Same for Brazil.

Generally nations with fertility rate higher than India are poor, except for the oil rich arab nations.
I guess when you're poor sex is your only form of entertainment. And for the oil rich countries, it's jsut here is not much to do expt shop or eat so I guess they just stay home and have sex. Let alone, I doubt planned pregnancy/use of birth control is high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2014, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,128 posts, read 24,885,660 times
Reputation: 11103
The reason why the population grows rapidly in Africa and poorer places in Asia is that reproducing is the only method of a retirement policy.

When you are weak enough the only way of assuring survival is to have offspring. When they are men, they contribute to that, when women, they are lost, due to be married to another family. Having one or two sons is a strain on them, but having 5 sons divides the responsibility a lot more. And as the life expentancy is poor, you have to make 10 children in order for 8 to survive until adulthood. Or 6, as it was and still is in some places. Preventative measures plays a part, yes, but on the other hand African cultures managed this before - anal sex, which of course shocked the Europeans. Mostly condomes are helping to prevent venerable diseases, not to restrict childbirth.

In Europe there is no need for that. You work - and you get a pension. 99.99% of the children survive their childhood, and you don't have to guarantee your survival through offspring. It's not genetic, it's not heretary, it's not "racial", it's purely selfish. In developed countries it's... nonexistant, though "Eurabia"-morons like to think the other way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 12:49 PM
 
3,065 posts, read 8,915,069 times
Reputation: 2092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
The reason why the population grows rapidly in Africa and poorer places in Asia is that reproducing is the only method of a retirement policy.

When you are weak enough the only way of assuring survival is to have offspring. When they are men, they contribute to that, when women, they are lost, due to be married to another family. Having one or two sons is a strain on them, but having 5 sons divides the responsibility a lot more. And as the life expentancy is poor, you have to make 10 children in order for 8 to survive until adulthood. Or 6, as it was and still is in some places. Preventative measures plays a part, yes, but on the other hand African cultures managed this before - anal sex, which of course shocked the Europeans. Mostly condomes are helping to prevent venerable diseases, not to restrict childbirth.

In Europe there is no need for that. You work - and you get a pension. 99.99% of the children survive their childhood, and you don't have to guarantee your survival through offspring. It's not genetic, it's not heretary, it's not "racial", it's purely selfish. In developed countries it's... nonexistant, though "Eurabia"-morons like to think the other way.

You have offered some insight and I have been enlightened and agree with a lot of what you said. But what is your feeling on the ME/Gulf states?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 12:54 PM
 
266 posts, read 676,906 times
Reputation: 381
Also theyve found that by guaranteeing the health of children, the fertility rate goes down hugely. Before one would think that ensuring the survival of babies and toddlers would create a big spike in population - instead they find it stabilises it immensely.

When people have to go through a survival rate of 50% of the under-5s, and just as bad ones for the under 15, s and the adults also, they have alot of children in a hope as many can make it as possible. Improve the healthcare and people are given the luxury of actually planning their lives, and amount of children that will survive to help the family, and look after the parents in their old age. This actually falls dramatically below the 4,5 or 6 kids that certain desperate countries are having per woman, such as Bangladesh that is now producing only 2.2 kids, whereas a generation ago it was more than double.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 03:31 PM
 
14,611 posts, read 17,686,578 times
Reputation: 7783
Quote:
Originally Posted by smool View Post
This actually falls dramatically below the 4,5 or 6 kids that certain desperate countries are having per woman, such as Bangladesh that is now producing only 2.2 kids, whereas a generation ago it was more than double.
Everything you are saying is absolutely true, but what you are not saying is it won't be enough. The "family planning policy" introduced into China began as a two child per couple policy, but quickly was reduced to "one child". Despite sub replacement fertility and net outward emigration, the population of China won't reach zero population growth until the year 2026. That is nearly half a century to overcome the momentum of a young median age population and a mostly rural population.

The policy in China is extreme, and people would not drop their fertility rate that much just because of social pressure and moving to urban areas. Coercion, much of it not pretty, was required.

The normal way to have it happen is too little to late.

I am an advocate of taking people's rights from them. I don't see any other way to prevent a massive catastrophe. I know it sounds cruel, and many people will call it racist, but the prospect of a billion people dying in a Malthusian catastrophe is a much worst calamity than taking away their reproductive rights.

It won't happen of course. The rights of people to decide how many children they want will be defended, and then the catastrophe will be called an Act of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
23,311 posts, read 29,176,318 times
Reputation: 32692
I read it somewhere, they asked Chinese parents if they were allowed to have 2 children, instead of one, how many would consider having 2 children. 70% polled said they would not have a second child!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 08:09 PM
 
3,065 posts, read 8,915,069 times
Reputation: 2092
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
I read it somewhere, they asked Chinese parents if they were allowed to have 2 children, instead of one, how many would consider having 2 children. 70% polled said they would not have a second child!
But they've been indoctrinated in the one child mentality. same way when slavery in the USA ended many went back to the same slave owners and were essentially still slaves. The situation has been illustrated in fiction, in the Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones), and other places. That said , it will take a generation or more for people to move away from 1 child policies. People have been indoctrinated with this mentality, so just because the rule changes you expect them to change their mentality? It will take time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 08:14 PM
 
14,611 posts, read 17,686,578 times
Reputation: 7783
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
70% polled said they would not have a second child!
That is a politically expedient answer. Don't forget the government is going to spend the next 12 years trying to force the greatest urbanization movement that the world has ever seen. It may be the most catstrophic social experiment of all time. But as people urbanize (forcibly or voluntarily) they often opt to be a one child family (same as Europe).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top