World population collapse?

[annem]

I just saw a new DVD called “Demographic Winter” in which demographers gloomily explain why they think there will be a world population collapse.

Everywhere, from the most developed country to the least developed, women are having less children. Population fell in Indonesia from 5.6 to 2.4; Japan’s from 2.0 to 1.3; Mexico’s from 6.8 to 2.4; Brazil’s from 5.4 to 2.3; and South Africa’s from 5.9 to 2.7.

Shockingly, about 40 per cent of the world’s countries have fertility rates from 0 to 2.4 children born per woman. Replacement level is 2.1.

Mark Steyn wrote “We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world. Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries…Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”

Europeans are expected to fall from 24% of the world population in 1950 to 7% of the world population by 2050. By 2050 Russia will lose at least a third of its current population. Spain will have lost 24% of its current population, which is hardly surprising, given its current 1.2 fertility rate. Could a war have done better?

The Catholic church, alone, of all the other churches, has stood solidly against birth control, abortion, and euthanasia.

How different the world would be if Catholics obeyed the church.

God bless, Annam

 

[ribozyme]

I just saw a new DVD called “Demographic Winter” in which demographers gloomily explain why they think there will be a world population collapse.

Everywhere, from the most developed country to the least developed, women are having less children. Population fell in Indonesia from 5.6 to 2.4; Japan’s from 2.0 to 1.3; Mexico’s from 6.8 to 2.4; Brazil’s from 5.4 to 2.3; and South Africa’s from 5.9 to 2.7.

Shockingly, about 40 per cent of the world’s countries have fertility rates from 0 to 2.4 children born per woman. Replacement level is 2.1.

Mark Steyn wrote “We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world. Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries…Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”

Europeans are expected to fall from 24% of the world population in 1950 to 7% of the world population by 2050. By 2050 Russia will lose at least a third of its current population. Spain will have lost 24% of its current population, which is hardly surprising, given its current 1.2 fertility rate. Could a war have done better?

The Catholic church, alone, of all the other churches, has stood solidly against birth control, abortion, and euthanasia.

How different the world would be if Catholics obeyed the church.

God bless, Annam

You could increase the population porportion of Europeans by encouraging birth control in other regions of the world.

 

[goofyjim]

Excuse me but I don’t believe we are overpopulated. OTOH, those who say there is a population collapse seem to be out to scare people as well. The overall population is still growing. Things balance themselves out in the long run. As I said in another thread just let individuals, as long as it is through abstinence, decide how many children to bring or not bring into the world. God will take care of the rest.

 

[cceerpp]

God is still our Creator and Sustainer.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

The Population Collapse is due to the “Population Control” advocates and their draconian tactics they use.

As I said in The Immorality of “Population Control”, Population Control and the tactics are immoral.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Things balance themselves out in the long run.

I agree. People will never go extinct through birth control.

 

[Matt_Collins]

…those who say there is a population collapse seem to be out to scare people as well. The overall population is still growing. Things balance themselves out in the long run.

Well, I have to disagree. If you look at the link below, you’ll see that of the major western nations, the United States has the highest fertility rate, 2.1, which, in the western world, is the bare replacement rate. EVERY OTHER major industrial nation has a lower fertility rate.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

The replacement fertility rate of 2.1 applies mainly to the western world. In geographic locations with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy (i.e., the third world) the replacement fertility rate is significantly higher. In some places it is as high as 3.3.

It’s true that the world’s population rate is still increasing. However, this is due to “population momentum,” which refers to the percentage of a population that has not yet reached their childbearing years. The higher this percentage, the more time it will take to reach peak population, even though the fertility rate for the population may have dipped below replacement levels.

Western Europe is particularly at risk. The math just isn’t there to support much hope that much of Western European culture will survive past this century.

My son is majoring in actuarial science in college. I think he’s going to have an interesting career.

 

[Calliso]

With over 6 billion people on the planet somehow I am in serious doubt that the human population as a whole is in any danger of going extinct…

 

[goofyjim]

Well, I have to disagree. If you look at the link below, you’ll see that of the major western nations, the United States has the highest fertility rate, 2.1, which, in the western world, is the bare replacement rate. EVERY OTHER major industrial nation has a lower fertility rate.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

The replacement fertility rate of 2.1 applies mainly to the western world. In geographic locations with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy (i.e., the third world) the replacement fertility rate is significantly higher. In some places it is as high as 3.3.

It’s true that the world’s population rate is still increasing. However, this is due to “population momentum,” which refers to the percentage of a population that has not yet reached their childbearing years. The higher this percentage, the more time it will take to reach peak population, even though the fertility rate for the population may have dipped below replacement levels.

Western Europe is particularly at risk. The math just isn’t there to support much hope that much of Western European culture will survive past this century.

My son is majoring in actuarial science in college. I think he’s going to have an interesting career.

Well unfortunately there are many of us who are choosing not to get married therefore not having children. What do you suggest? Forcing us into it? Taxing me extra as a single person to pay for another couple to deliberately have more children? I wouldn’t accept either proposition.

 

[1ke]

With over 6 billion people on the planet somehow I am in serious doubt that the human population as a whole is in any danger of going extinct…

Extinction is not the premise of the video (which I own and have watched in its entirity).

The video explores the *impact *and *consequences *of declining population on governments, infrastructure, the economy, social policy, immigration, geo-political stability and other aspects of the individual countries and the global community as a whole.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I just saw a new DVD called “Demographic Winter” in which demographers gloomily explain why they think there will be a world population collapse.

Everywhere, from the most developed country to the least developed, women are having less children. Population fell in Indonesia from 5.6 to 2.4; Japan’s from 2.0 to 1.3; Mexico’s from 6.8 to 2.4; Brazil’s from 5.4 to 2.3; and South Africa’s from 5.9 to 2.7.

Shockingly, about 40 per cent of the world’s countries have fertility rates from 0 to 2.4 children born per woman. Replacement level is 2.1.

Mark Steyn wrote “We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world. Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries…Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone.”

Europeans are expected to fall from 24% of the world population in 1950 to 7% of the world population by 2050. By 2050 Russia will lose at least a third of its current population. Spain will have lost 24% of its current population, which is hardly surprising, given its current 1.2 fertility rate. Could a war have done better?

The Catholic church, alone, of all the other churches, has stood solidly against birth control, abortion, and euthanasia.

How different the world would be if Catholics obeyed the church.

God bless, Annam

Ba’al’s revenge has worked out quite well!

What used to be “Christendom” has been tempted by Ba’al, aka the demons behind the idol of “comfortable pleasure-seeking convenience”, into choosing immediate self-gratification over children.

Ba’al has indeed gotten his appetite for the children of his enemy nearly satisfied, hasn’t he?

But the Church won’t die. We will be overwhelmed by anti-Christian populations, of course, but our being in the minority has happened before, and will undoubtedly happen more than once again in the future.

 

[1ke]

Well unfortunately there are many of us who are choosing not to get married therefore not having children. What do you suggest? Forcing us into it? Taxing me extra as a single person to pay for another couple to deliberately have more children? I wouldn’t accept either proposition.

This would be the opposite of current government policies in place in many countries to force people **not **to have children and/or penalize them if they do.

Social policy is often enacted to shape behavior.

Just because it would be YOUR behavior that would be shaped, all of a sudden it’s wrong? Hmmm…

 

[Caesar517]

This would be the opposite of current government policies in place in many countries to force people **not **to have children and/or penalize them if they do.

Social policy is often enacted to shape behavior.

Just because it would be YOUR behavior that would be shaped, all of a sudden it’s wrong? Hmmm…

There is a big difference between social policy and government law.

 

[1ke]

There is a big difference between social policy and government law.

Um, no there isn’t.

 

[Caesar517]

Um, no there isn’t.

I mean what society sees as appropiate vs. what the government enforces as law. One can violate the “societal norm” and at worst be seen as an outcast. One cannot violate government law without punishment, though.

I do not want the government to have anything to do with the number of children two people decide to have.

On the other hand, I care less about what society thinks is “appropiate.” If society thinks I have too many children, I can tell them to shove it. I can’t say that to the government.

 

[1ke]

I mean what society sees as appropiate vs. what the government enforces as law. One can violate the “societal norm” and at worst be seen as an outcast. One cannot violate government law without punishment, though.

I do not want the government to have anything to do with the number of children two people decide to have.

On the other hand, I care less about what society thinks is “appropiate.” If society thinks I have too many children, I can tell them to shove it. I can’t say that to the government.

I agree that “social norms” and government policy are not the same thing.

However, “social policy” (the term I used) is an aspect of government policy.

 

[Caesar517]

I agree that “social norms” and government policy are not the same thing.

However, “social policy” (the term I used) is an aspect of government policy.

Ok, I took “social policy” to mean society’s general policy and not the government’s policy towards society.

As a conservative, I want the government to defend me and regulate trade. Other than that, I pretty much just want the government to leave me alone and stop trying to fix everyone’s problems.

 

[JimG]

You could increase the population porportion of Europeans by encouraging birth control in other regions of the world.

And if the West has any (name removed by moderator)ut, that seems to be exactly what is being done. Encourage others to depopulate as well!

Europe is reproducing at below replacement rate. Their economies can only be sustained through immigration–and the immigrants are mostly of non-Western cultures.

We can encourage other cultures to follow the European example. That way lies the depopulation of the entire world–presuming other civilizations are foolish enough to go along with it.

And if they are, well, all it takes is one generation of non-reproduction to wipe us out.

Production and training of the next generation has always been the reason (up till now) that marriage has received favorable tax treatment. Yes, the tax laws should treat marriage more favorably, and should increase the dependent exemption by a lot.

 

[goofyjim]

This would be the opposite of current government policies in place in many countries to force people **not **to have children and/or penalize them if they do.

Social policy is often enacted to shape behavior.

Just because it would be YOUR behavior that would be shaped, all of a sudden it’s wrong? Hmmm…

And I never agreed that was correct. But to turn around and do the opposite, yes, is wrong. Let individuals decide either way. The government does not belong in the bedroom. It should not be enacting policy in either direction-to force anyone not to have children or to force them to have children. You can hold a gun to my head and shoot me for all I care. I ain’t getting married and I ain’t paying just for someone else to hav extra children beyond what our tax code already allows for dependents.

 

[JimG]

And I never agreed that was correct. But to turn around and do the opposite, yes, is wrong. Let individuals decide either way. The government does not belong in the bedroom. It should not be enacting policy in either direction-to force anyone not to have children or to force them to have children. You can hold a gun to my head and shoot me for all I care. I ain’t getting married and I ain’t paying just for someone else to hav extra children beyond what our tax code already allows for dependents.

But of course, since there is a tax exemption for dependents, single people are in effect helping to pay for other peoples’ children.

And that’s OK with me, because those children–the more the better–will pay the social security benefits of all of us–married or never married or childless–when they go to work. But the exemption needs to be bigger, since it’s merely a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of raising them.

And if we tax married couples at lower rates, that would encourage marriage and the raising of children–which is a good thing for society.