[fluff]

A few years back there was concern that we were over-populated. Now there is concern that we hae a declining birth-rate and consequently an aging population, which will need to be supported by a shrinking working population.

I have seen advice from governmental quarters suggesting that people should have more kids, in fact in some European nations there are tax breaks for having a third sprog.

I would think that there are more than enough people in the world already and that a declining population is no bad thing.

Am I wrong? Isn't having more kids simply going to excerbate the problem.

Perhaps we need another war followed by a deadly viral epidemic a la 1914-1918 era. I'd certainly prefer a declining birth rate.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Population in the larger or developed "1st world" nations is declining and fast...

The US is at like 2.6 or 2.8 children per couple (so we're still an expanding population), Japan is like 1.8 (declining), a lot of the European countries - especially the nordic ones are below the 2.0 mark. China is finally levelling out to the point where in the countryside they're allowing more than one child per family.

The danger isn't in the 1st world nations, but in the still developing and remote nations where the growth rate is like 7. Through medical advances the mortality rate of children under five has been cut in half, and is still going down as new technology and cleaner water, better food makes its way into less developed nations - but as a result the general reporoduction of the area has not changed thus placing a huge burden on already scarce resources, causing greater polution and damage and requiring more and more of the earth's resources.

But, another thing to keep in mind is those same nations with the exploding population growth consume probably less than half of what the US alone consumes. So if we're looking at maintaining resources, then the US population needs to learn to consume less as in general 1st world nations are far more responsible for the degradation of the earth's resources and the resulting damage done.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by fluff
Perhaps we need another war followed by a deadly viral epidemic a la 1914-1918 era. I'd certainly prefer a declining birth rate.

And I agree

 

[$tinkle]

don't look at us - we're doing our part

source
Over 40 Million Unborn Babies Killed Since Roe

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
don't look at us - we're doing our part

hahaha

half of all people that have ever lived are still alive today

before we start growing more people, we need to expand resources... moon?

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
don't look at us - we're doing our part

I kill billions of my own sperm every single week.

Just trying to do my part...

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Silver
I kill billions of my own sperm every single week.

Just trying to do my part...

would that make your sock a mass grave?

 

[towelie]

The only reason the declining birth rate in first world nations is a concern is due to economic reasons.

People still retire at 65, as they did in the 1930's. The problem is that back then, not many people LIVED to 65! Now people are living much longer.

Social security is also based on an expanding population, and this is not sustainable. All the people who retired until recently had their social security payed by the large number of baby boomers, so they had no problem. Now the boomers are retiring. Do you think that we will see social security? Think again. If we do, it'll be trifiling. Have a backup plan.

This had to be done sometime though. We can't just grow forever. These third world nations seemed to be determined to learn the hard way. IF YOU CAN'T FEED YOURSELF, HOW WILL YOU FEED 7 KIDS, STUPID!? Giving food and donations to these people. It just allows their kids to survive to 13 and then have a family of their own, exacberating the problem. It simply can't go on forever, so stopping it sooner is better than later. Fewer people will suffer that way. I know it sounds cold, but it is true. Give a family some food, and they eat for a day. Give them a crate of condoms and they eat for a lifetime.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by $tinkle
would that make your sock a mass grave?

Tissues are weapons of mass destruction for my sperm population.

 

[Jorvik]

I love how the serious discussions turn into this. Its freaking great!

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
hahaha

half of all people that have ever lived are still alive today

before we start growing more people, we need to expand resources... moon?

Yeah well if you stopped eating that'd be a start ya big turd

(News just in- has just been declared "give LO a hard time day" in Japan------go figure )

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Yeah well if you stopped eating that'd be a start ya big turd

(News just in- has just been declared "give LO a hard time day" in Japan------go figure )

If I didn't maintain my weight with you on the other side of the planet, we'd spin right out of orbit

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by LordOpie
If I didn't maintain my weight with you on the other side of the planet, we'd spin right out of orbit

I'll have you know that I'm trim taut and teriffic.......but I'm madly drinking Asahi Super Dry at the moment just to keep the world at equilibrium.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
The best situation would be the complete oppsite of what we have now. Declining birth rates in 3rd world countries, and more people in 1st world. Obviously this would mean that we could have better standards as a result of the majority of the population living under better conditions. Right now however, I think the problem is that we categorize these nations. From a world standpoint, we are overpopulated and screwed. But, withough mass transportation and communication, we must look to each national as the criteria for weighing population policy decisions. Here we see that the federal government clearly wants a young nation with a strong workforce to support the longer-living old people. From a global standpoint, the worst possible thing we could do is increase population. But there's no world government, so all we can do is complain.

Was that just a brain dump of random and possibly conflicting reports or is there some reasoning behind the statements? The first two sentence seem to be offered as fact rather than opinion with reasoning behind them. The logic of the third sentence is dubious.

This isn't personal, your post just didn't make much sense to me.

 

[LordOpie]

I'll take 2006 and the over