In a discussion setting the funny response is: “If overpopulation is such a serious issue and you are so concerned about it, why are you still here?” The issue in these instances seems to prove that arrogant minded people believethat they speak for the good of man, while believing that their own advise has no bearing of themselves. They are above their own advise, notice that? Point that out to them, and they can’t counter it.
This is a completely artificial construct of today’s society. We set up our modern system of taking care of older people throwing the burden on society and by requiring it to be Ponzi funded. This is not the way it was through most of mankind’s history.
If you’d bother to actually study demographics rather than shooting from the hip, you’d already know that disease and emigration depopulation are drastically different animals than than depopulation resulting from inadequate TFRs. Plagues and famines disproportionately kill older and sicker populations, leaving intact a higher proportion of young, strong and fertile. Emigration occurs for lack of of local opportunity, which is often the most severe in Stage 1 (as was the case in Ireland in the past). Thus, such countries don’t end up with a massive imbalance between the old and young. Furthermore, human life spans have never been remotely like they are today. It’s a new challenge we haven’t really dealt with before. We can live LOTS longer, but doing so requires a large investment in health care services. I don’t have the figures handy, but I recall reading that something in excess of 80% of the average American’s lifetime health care costs occur in the last 2 years of his life. That’s a VERY new challenge we haven’t figured out yet. But figuring it out isn’t going to get any easier when there are as many elderly in need of care as there are working age people. That’s a devastating looming challenge coming for us not so far down the road.
Since you’ve obviously studied the demographics of Ireland, I’d appreciate it if you would post the sources which are referring too.
It is more proper to say “average” life spans are longer today than they were in the recent past. Fact is, the human body is the human body and nothing has changed genetically to increase life spans. The average does not truly portray an accurate picture, because it ignores that fact that far more people died in childhood in the past than they do today. I know this even from my own family’s history. Half of my great grandmother’s (born 1890s) siblings never made it past 5 years old. The ones that made it past that lived into their 80s and 90s.
We’re not going to figure that one out. One of the major problems is that people are being forced to live beyond their natural life span, which is an extremely expensive proposition.
I’m not interested in global demographics; I’m interested in Irish demographics and the relationship between the age groups.
It’s not a significant as infant mortality, since the number of infants dying at a young age is far greater than the number of mothers dying in childbirth.
Society didn’t collapse over the 1,000s of years prior to modern medicine, and it’s not going to collapse now (though the economic system is likely to). At worst, we’ll simply be back to letting people die when God designed them to die, not when we decide.
Truth is overpopulation might be an issue but not in the Western world if anything, we are having problems of dwindling population and now many countries face problems because they don’t have enough births to offset the aging population.
This is an argument that people keep bringing up, and I simply don’t get why. These are simply programs that were artificially created and funded like a Ponzi scheme. They don’t exist in all countries, and haven’t existed for much of human history. Failure of these programs is obviously inevitable if population grows slower than in the past, but that’s a function of incredibly irresponsible planning, not mankind’s survival.
Overpopulation is a myth, but even if it were true it would not justify killing innocents. If you’re in an over-crowded life boat, you can’t just shoot some people to make room.
Don’t go all strawman. Nobody here is suggesting human extinction resulting from a depopulation trend due to sub-replacement TFRs. We’re warning that it could very easily collapse the current socioeconomic system and literally lead to social chaos. Watch Japan and Russia especially. It will hit there first.
I don’t need to. I’ve provided an example of a country whose population was halved over a century and survived. That’s not opinion, it’s a fact. So the argument of declining population as it pertains to survival it moot.
So you are using Ireland as an example?
It’s an man-made construct necessary for a particular man-made economic system. It’s not necessary for human survival. Furthermore, it’s pushing off the care of the elderly from family to society, reversing a trend that has existed for thousands of years. We’re also seeing the consequences of that.
It doesn’t matter why the population reduced; it’s that fact that it reduced and society survived. I can use other examples if you’d like, such as PTGs. The North Sentinelese are an excellent example. Simple math indicates that a population of, at best, 300 people, living on an island for 60,000 or so years, likely reached steady state ten of thousands of years ago…yet they survive.As to equating Ireland’s emigration population decline to population decline from demographic aging, I get it. You’ve made up your mind and are uninterested in hearing why the diffferences are profound.
Actually you are dismissing the roots of why it was instituded in the first place.
You effectively noting what I’ve said. The lifestyle under the industrial revolution is not the norm; it’s simply a blip on the radar screen of human history. What we’re seeing now is all the consequences of it. It’s all about economics. Take the modern economics out of it and we’ll rapidly be back to where were two centuries ago.
Interesting, considering the Catholic view on contraception versus the Muslim view.
Seems they have similar views from what I understand. The problem is with the pseudo Catholic population that has bought into the current moral relativistic views and think they know better than the Church.
You might want to read up on it.
Seriously, the fact that some people think like this is shameful and disgusting. SOME radical people think like this. However, there are large number of realists like myself that simply look at the facts and make informed decisions. We don’t play into the “us against them” nonsense.
More “us against them” assumptions. I have no objection to deer hunting provided they are not wasted (used for food, etc.). That’s coming from someone that loves animals and is constantly around wild deer.