US Birth Rate Hits New Low

[Guest]

Even with education you will not manage to get the population to decline. Governments in places with negative population growth ship in immigrant to stop their economy going into decline because there is no sustainable way to reduce population (i.e. people get old and need treatment/pension etc, hence they need to tax people to pay for their aging population).

If you are concerned about overpopulation (which i am not, at least for a few years) education would, at best, be a very long term "solution" requiring years of savings to pay for the aging global population.

Education shows dividends in relatively short time scales.

I find it incredible that we need to import cheap labour when a man can barely get a job after the age of 40, even though he would desperately like to do so. It seems to me its the economic system which is at fault which relies on virtual slave labour to sustain corporate profits. The threat of pulling out to a cheaper production zone is dangled in front of our faces to keep us all compliant.

When a person is redundant to society at the half way point in his life - there is something fundamentally wrong with the world. We have allowed a tiny number of white middle class men to define what society should look like and we are all suffering because it just doesn't match the reality of real people living real lives. If we don't re-examine the fundamentals we will never be in a position to get the bigger picture right.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 5, 2012 by Guest

[Render]

PS - I am an environmental scientist and see very clearly the cost benefit analysis of new technologies.

Br Cornelius

You see it from your perspective alone, which is obviously very limited.

You're not the only one in the world that thinks about the impact of technologies etc.

The reason why many technologies make the cut is exactly because the benefits outway the costs.

Anyway, as i said..go on being a pessimist about it. I'll stick to my positivist view.

[Myles]

I'd like to see many changes that I think would help with the overpopulation of the USA.

Free vasectomies.

Letting certain people in jail have a reduced sentence if they agree to a vasectomy (maybe 1 year off a 10 year term). This would also help limit the kids who are raised in crappy families.

[Bella-Angelique]

For now,

If the goal is to reduce population then the model to use is what has happened in Brazil.

[Orcseeker]

I don't know how much Earth can support, no one does. Which in itself destroys the argument of "overpopulation".

We aren't even close to our limit of providing food for everyone (http://makewealthhis...d-10-billion/ http://grist.org/pop...t-wont-be-easy/)

How about you and everyone else looks at the current situation and starts to think how we can adjust it to the inevitable. Like many scientists are already doing. Look at lab-foods, building higher skyscrapers, building towers for agriculture, etc...

It's a dead end statement to say "with fewer ppl things would be easier to fix". Because there aren't fewer ppl and there will only be more ppl. Of course it's easier to get to a solution with fewer ppl, that's why we have representatives in politics because it's not possible in these times to get everyones opinions, DUH.

Necessitiy is the mother of all creation. That's why science is a constantly evolving thing. That's why you hear more about the electric car again, that's why lab and gmo foods are coming up more in the news.

If ppl lack the vision to see how distribution of goods and food etc should be adjusted to the world population, then of course you get conservaties with no imagination that say "oh , its the fault of overpopulation".

That's like the goverment allowing houses and apartments to be build without garages and then blaming the ppl if they park their cars in illegal places. It's not the population their fault, they're there. that's not gonna change. It's how you deal with it that's the issue.

Or it's like saying if a family doesn't have enough money to make ends meet, they should just kill their children because logically they would have more money left. That's not how the world works of course, the children are there so you have to work around it. Extrapolate that to the world and you have reality.

When you say build taller skyscrapers.

Is it desirable to have denser populations?

I believe we have up to 70% of the worlds population living in cities with the other 30% living in rural areas. Now, with an increased density of population, the likelihood of a supervirus increases. It's natures knee jerk reaction to too many people in one place.

In Africs, we have people having babies when they can't even support what they already have. Some countries out there almost have 50% of the population under 18 years of age. Oh and these days representatives don't really represent as much as they used to.

Do you further think it is desireable to have huge populations?

We are already stretched for resources in some areas and now 3rd world countries have been getting a but richer while having huge populations the consumption of resources has increased exponentially.

Of course I agree with making choices to build around the problem as ive been advocating that through many of my posts. Proclaiming education and such to communities and the like.

[acidhead]

Except for Africa and parts of the ME the world's demographics is either stagnant or in decline or soon to be in decline due to GOV intervention(China).

[Guest]

Except for Africa and parts of the ME the world's demographics is either stagnant or in decline or soon to be in decline due to GOV intervention(China).

And yet it is still rising globally with a predicted peak of 10billion by 2050.

Br Cornelius

[Render]

When you say build taller skyscrapers.

Is it desirable to have denser populations?

I believe we have up to 70% of the worlds population living in cities with the other 30% living in rural areas. Now, with an increased density of population, the likelihood of a supervirus increases. It's natures knee jerk reaction to too many people in one place.

In Africs, we have people having babies when they can't even support what they already have. Some countries out there almost have 50% of the population under 18 years of age. Oh and these days representatives don't really represent as much as they used to.

Do you further think it is desireable to have huge populations?

We are already stretched for resources in some areas and now 3rd world countries have been getting a but richer while having huge populations the consumption of resources has increased exponentially.

Of course I agree with making choices to build around the problem as ive been advocating that through many of my posts. Proclaiming education and such to communities and the like.

I think that world "desirable" isn't worth discussing in this case.

You can philosophize about it. But it won't change the inevitable reality that population will increase.

Some ppl like denser population, others don't.

It's not about thinking in terms we live in now and adding a bunch of ppl on to it (which would of course cause a lot of problems, take traffic for instance). But the world evolves along with population increase. (the whole concept of traffic will change, to build further on the example)

Edited December 8, 2012 by Render

[Orcseeker]

I think that world "desirable" isn't worth discussing in this case.

You can philosophize about it. But it won't change the inevitable reality that population will increase.

Some ppl like denser population, others don't.

It's not about thinking in terms we live in now and adding a bunch of ppl on to it (which would of course cause a lot of problems, take traffic for instance). But the world evolves along with population increase. (the whole concept of traffic will change, to build further on the example)

With that the chance of a super virus, as mentioned before, increases as well. I don't think that is a good thing at all.

[acidhead]

And yet it is still rising globally with a predicted peak of 10billion by 2050.

Br Cornelius

you're projecting short term.. I'm talking long term.... the global average is declining

[Guest]

you're projecting short term.. I'm talking long term.... the global average is declining

Almost all of the environmental damage took place from the 1970's to now. A period of 40 years when population went from about 4billion to 7billion. Populations are set to rise over the next 40 years by a further 3 billion. There is more than enough time to finish the ecosystem off through population pressure.

It matters not a jot that after 2050 populations decline - the damage will be done and it will take thousands of years to repair. All the environmental crisis we currently face are mearly symptoms of this.

Br Cornelius

[Myles]

I'm only addressing the US in this post. I think as much as we need to address the birth rate, we need to address who is having the babies. The less educated (inner city, white trash, criminals, illegals) have the highest birth rates. If the children are not brought up to be good citizens, it compounds the problem. It's not just a case of a families financial situation, but obviousely it is a factor.

Would it be wrong to offer $200 and a free vasectomy to each man who applies for unemployment?