"23 countries will lose half their populations by 2100." Fears of growing overpopulation now misplaced

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The standard of living was also significantly lower, for most people. Small houses, no cars, no vacations, sometimes no electricity or running water. If people were willing to live under those circumstances, children wouldn’t be more expensive today.
 
Even in the agrarian past, children did cost more than they brought in for at least the first ten years.
 
“Now misplaced”?
I’ve seen a number of demographers screaming about overpopulation fears being misplaced years ago. Not only that, these predictions show a decline much faster than previously expected.
It’s just simple math (calculus to be precise) but a bit abstract. So the global population continues to grow but the rate of growth has plunged (more than expected). I’ve posted Hans Rosling videos here before to give a visualization of this (based on perfect replacement (previous prediction) rather than below replacement (which is what we’re now seeing)).
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Maybe if anything good comes out of the current situation it will be that there’s a realisation that more of everything isn’t necessarily a good thing
Click to expand...
I’m not holding my breath. Seems a longing to return to certain aspects of consumerism is still strong.
tuffsmurf said:
Small houses, no cars, no vacations, sometimes no electricity or running water. If people were willing to live under those circumstances, children wouldn’t be more expensive today.
Click to expand...
You know, there’s a number of people who simply do not want to have kids and are resisting social pressure. I’ve met a number of people who specifically intend not to have children. Not for fiscal reasons but simply not wanting to become parents.

On the other end are people were waiting for the proper time (a spouse, career stability, etc) only you find themselves near the end of childbearing years.
 
They did, but many of them didn’t survive past their early childhood years so people had a lot knowing many would die while very young.

Infant and maternal mortality rates were also high.
 
Last edited:
Yes they are focusing on robot development.

However, robots won’t fill the gaps that will be left without humans,

In fact, if science develops intelligent designs, it could be the trigger which starts a global nuclear war, as a computer teaches itself to break into national defense systems and creates a nuclear war. OK, I saw this on “The 100,” on Netflix. Good series BTW. 😃
 
Immigration would not help with the Japanese ethnic group going extinct, because the immigrants wouldn’t be ethnically Japanese. It may even make the situation worse, as they would have to compete with other groups instead of trying to solve it among themselves.
 
JimG said:
My first real employer paid me somewhat less than a married man, since I was single at the time. The stated reason was that married men have a family to support. Of course such a family based pay scale would be illegal now, but it would not be out of line with Church teaching.
Click to expand...
I asked the married men in my parish if they would support employers paying married men a higher pay than single men for doing the same job. They all said no.

They were afraid that employers would preferentially hire single men since they can pay a lower wage.
 
Japan had a program where descendants of the Japanese who immigrated to other countries like Brazil and Peru, were encouraged to go back to Japan.

There were still assimilation problems because of cultural differences, even though these immigrants were ethnically Japanese.
 
Last edited:
Paul Revere was relatively rich for his time. Yet 6 of his 16 children did not survive to adulthood.

Only one of Abe Lincoln’s four sons survived to adulthood.

What about the poor and the hardscrabble farmers who were not in the privileged positions of men like Revere and Lincoln? How many children did they have to have just to replace themselves in the population. Sometimes we don’t comprehend just how hard life was back then.

Part of having children back in the day was not only for the labor but also to have someone to take care of the parents in their old age. We’ve been so used to Social Security since the 1930’s that we’ve lost sight of what it was like for old people and their children before SS.
 
Sarcelle said:
Japan had a program where descendants of the Japanese who immigrated to other countries like Brazil and Peru, were encouraged to go back to Japan.

There were still assimilation problems because of cultural differences, even though these immigrants were ethnically Japanese.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct. And I believe most of those people went back to Latin America and did not stay in Japan because they didn’t fit anymore. But I wonder if it would be easier for say, an Italian American to go live permanently in Italy? I suppose it happens.
 
If the United Nations continues to have their way with population control, tying abortion laws to funding, then we will see an alarming decline in many countries.
 
Why do population threads here always go to abortion? There are far greater factors at play
 
A population control public service announcement (PSA) runs regularly on a local news-talk station here. It speaks of a world in which clean water, food, healthcare, and a better quality of life could be possible with fewer people. How simple life changes would help to achieve that goal. Funny that it’s in English though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top