| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
In knowledge economies having more children decreases household income (in the short- and medium-term). Children in knowledge economies are extremely expensive but earn more in the long-term, so people have less of them. In labour economies the cost per child is more than outweighed by the child's relatively quick return of labour and income to the household, so it's in the family's interest to have as many as possible. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 08 2011 17:36 Phenny wrote: Why would population magically start to decline in 30 years? That vid just says "it's not true lol, just a myth guys" without providing any evidence whatsoever. This is a constant in every demographic studies I have seen, by 2050 the population will stop growing. Then some demograph think it will decline, other say it will stay at the same level (around 9-10 billions ?). Don't ask me the math or "why" cauze I don't know, I'm not a demograph and only remember the conclusion of those works I read back then. | ||
|
MaxField
United States2386 Posts
i really do not think overpopulation will ever happen. There will always be people that have a butt-load of kids and those who do not have any. I am not sure how to explain it but i can promise there will not be an "overpopulation" of humans on earth. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On February 09 2011 01:34 WhiteDog wrote: This is a constant in every demographic studies I have seen, by 2050 the population will stop growing. Then some demograph think it will decline, other say it will stay at the same level (around 9-10 billions ?). Don't ask me the math or "why" cauze I don't know, I'm not a demograph and only remember the conclusion of those works I read back then. Demographs are simply extrapolating the developments of the last decades into the future. The (relative) population growth steadily declined in that time, especially in correlation with economic development. There are only a few countries in the world nowadays with the insane population growth rates most countries had 50-100 years ago. Why have there been insane population growth rates at that time? The reproduction strategies of the past were still practiced while mortality rates dropped drastically in the modern age, simple as that. More modern reproduction strategies seem to solve that problem, and we as individuals are lucky that that is the case, because the average quality of life would decrease if economic growth could not keep up with population growth (as is the case in many developing countries, see e.g. egypt) | ||
|
Cain0
United Kingdom608 Posts
 . In the extremely undeveoped world, (e.g. Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe ect) people give birth to lots of children due to lack of contraception and lack of entertainment. However, the death rates are so high in these countries, the population stays the same because the birth rates are roughly the same as the death rates. These countries are at stage one on the demographic transition model. In countries that are just starting to become developed, the healthcare system starts to improve and the death rate plummets, this causes the population to spiral much like india over the past 50 years (since WW2, the Indian popuation has increased from 300 million to 1.1 billion and shows no sign of stopping). This is stage 2 on the dtm. In countries that are nearing full development, people start being educated on the dangers of unprotected sex and the economic disadvantage you put yourself at by having children. The death rate starts to fall however the overall popuation is still increasing due to the ever falling death rate. These type of countries include places like South Africa, Eastern Europe and Argentina. This is stage 3 on the dtm. In countries that are just recently fully developed, the popuation stays the same due to equal birth and death rates. Woman still want to have children and Men still want to get married. Places like this include South Korea, Japan, Australia. This is stage 4 on the dtm. In countries that have been develpoed a while, woman realise the implications of having children and would rather work on their career before making a family. The health care is nearing the best it can be and death rates are extremely low resulting in an aging popuation and eventually a fall in the population. Places like this include Germany, UK, US, France ect. This is stage 5 on the dtm. Also, it has been calculated that in a fully developed country, the average fertillity of a woman throughout the country needs to be at 2.04 to sustain the population. Any lower than that, the population decreases, any higher than that, the population increases. The fertillity rate in Spain is 1.1, in Germany is 1.3, in UK is 1.8 and in France is 1.7. Also about China. The sex ratio in china is extremely male. This means that along with the one child policy, the popuation of China may half over the next 50-100 years. | ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
On February 09 2011 01:43 TheKing. wrote: i really do not think overpopulation will ever happen. There will always be people that have a butt-load of kids and those who do not have any. I am not sure how to explain it but i can promise there will not be an "overpopulation" of humans on earth. What? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
MrBadMan
93 Posts
If enough food is available, humans will reproduce. If not, they won't. Another factor is medical advancement, but that's not nearly as important as food. | ||
|
slappy
United States1271 Posts
Why do we have overpopulation ? because a lot of people have more than 2 kids (my family has 5) And furthermore, will that really bring us all to doom ? The Earth is like us, once it became to be, it was dying in the sense that every day its closer to its doom. The Earth of course has a longer life span than a human, so now the question is when will we sap it of all our resources? I think the real question here is how long will we be able to sustain ourselves (resource-wise), and when will the rest of the world implement a child limit like China to prevent further overpopulation? Why do these people keep giving births ? Some people like big families. My father had a lot of money, so he could afford it. Once he lost his job, it became a huge financial burden. The Mexican family next door to me has 7 kids, and they are poor and they live happily just having each other. Does this mean doom will be unleashed only in less developped countries, the (partial) cause of the issue ? I have no idea, so I will leave that for others to answer  + Show Spoiler + They had all put a condom on a banana, but apparently that hadn't worked. omg that is awesome lmao EDIT: + Show Spoiler + On February 09 2011 02:26 Cain0 wrote: Hi, I have an A-Level in geography so ill try to explain population grwoth to you . In the extremely undeveoped world, (e.g. Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe ect) people give birth to lots of children due to lack of contraception and lack of entertainment. However, the death rates are so high in these countries, the population stays the same because the birth rates are roughly the same as the death rates. These countries are at stage one on the demographic transition model. In countries that are just starting to become developed, the healthcare system starts to improve and the death rate plummets, this causes the population to spiral much like india over the past 50 years (since WW2, the Indian popuation has increased from 300 million to 1.1 billion and shows no sign of stopping). This is stage 2 on the dtm. In countries that are nearing full development, people start being educated on the dangers of unprotected sex and the economic disadvantage you put yourself at by having children. The death rate starts to fall however the overall popuation is still increasing due to the ever falling death rate. These type of countries include places like South Africa, Eastern Europe and Argentina. This is stage 3 on the dtm. In countries that are just recently fully developed, the popuation stays the same due to equal birth and death rates. Woman still want to have children and Men still want to get married. Places like this include South Korea, Japan, Australia. This is stage 4 on the dtm. In countries that have been develpoed a while, woman realise the implications of having children and would rather work on their career before making a family. The health care is nearing the best it can be and death rates are extremely low resulting in an aging popuation and eventually a fall in the population. Places like this include Germany, UK, US, France ect. This is stage 5 on the dtm. Also, it has been calculated that in a fully developed country, the average fertillity of a woman throughout the country needs to be at 2.04 to sustain the population. Any lower than that, the population decreases, any higher than that, the population increases. The fertillity rate in Spain is 1.1, in Germany is 1.3, in UK is 1.8 and in France is 1.7. Also about China. The sex ratio in china is extremely male. This means that along with the one child policy, the popuation of China may half over the next 50-100 years Thank you for this very informational post | ||
|
exeexe
Denmark937 Posts
He is from the US so he has his excuses. Just .. leave him alone. | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On February 08 2011 18:51 Morfildur wrote: Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"? Yes, it was exaggerated, but after looking around for a while i found it to be closer to the truth than i thought. For every sensible couple that decides on 0-2 children there are a lot more couples that have more children, either from accidents, because they want the child support money or because they don't believe in using protection. The situation is far worse in less developed countries, especially since for example the US still has a lot of free, habitable land while in those third world countries the habitable land is too small and there isn't enough agriculturally useable land to feed the population. It's time to build a moon station or off-world/space habitats and farms. I find that this bolded phrase a little irritating as the only reason they are sensible is if there really is an imminent overpopulation crisis. And the reasons may be true for some. However, what about the simple reason of wanting a couple more children? Having come from a larger family, I can say there is a significantly different family dynamic when you have +3 children that I think single child and even two children families miss. The whole overpopulation crisis is a wonderful scare tactic to justify all sorts of wonderful programs including sterilizing people with 'inferior' genetic material. The problem is it's hard to predict the efficiencies that can be created in food production. It's a crisis that can be continually pushed back, that will eventually happen. Since Malthuse, we've pushed back this so-called crisis a full century. So how imminent was the crisis in the first place? As others have said, an agriculture society (particularly one with poor medical care) requires many children both because for labour and because of infant mortality. The huge increase in population occured in the industrial era when living conditions improved and people continued to have the same amount of children. However, when children became an economic burden, people had less children and later. The same thing would probably happen in India and Africa. While infant mortality and agriculture child labour remain, the birth rate will be large. When living conditions improve, the population will probably increase dramatically, but if children become an economic burden, the birth rate will drop. The biggest problem with a lot of these prediction methods is that it assumes that the current trends will continue or even compound ad infinitum. That could be the case, but there could also be additional factors that would interrupt and change our predictions. Mark Twain + Show Spoiler + In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. Oh and the birth rate required to maintain 0 growth I believe is 2.1. The 0.1 is necessary to account for women unable to give children (or who don't want to.) | ||
|
beat farm
United States478 Posts
| ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On February 09 2011 04:40 beat farm wrote: im almost certain china does not have that 1 child thing going still. it created a problem with gender ratio. instead of a nearly 50% ratio of boys to girls its like high 50s for boys. It's still in effect, although only in large cities. In addition children of the one child policy, once they get married, are allowed to have two (but only if they marry another child of the policy). | ||
|
illumiel
United States75 Posts
This pretty much insures there will be no idiocracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect That means that compared to newborns, on average, we are below average intelligence. It also opens a whole new front on discussion how much smarter you are then your parents. A thing to note, that gains are concentrated in lower half of intelligence range. That means that upper bound of intelligence moved insignificantly. Also recent data shows stagnation. However, I think that increasing world complexity (using phone/pc/gaming/sc2^^ are highly abstract concepts) will force population to more or less keep intelligence levels up. Also this bring another question, does MAC rethinking (making shit simple to use) dumb down the population? | ||
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
The issue is not that we will get 40 billion people, and then go extinct because nobody has enough food. That is not the problem. The absolute worst case is that some people die and the population goes back down. There is no way for this to even be a problem, so quit talking about it. The issue is not about personal space. It's not like you just divide the land evenly and say, look, this is lots of space. It has nothing to do with space. I'm sure we can all fit comfortably in antarctica, though I heard the weather is unpleasant... The issue is about quality of life. Overpopulation is not linked to some mystical doomsday event, it is linked to poverty and disease and human suffering. Specifically local overpopulation, in areas that cannot support the resource drain. Waving your hands around, posting a shitty link about how the population is going to stabilize is fucking retarded. No shit.... what you should be concerned about is that "stabilize" can mean a lot of suffering. We certainly ought to have the foresight to avoid it. Overpopulation is a real problem that causes real suffering and deserves real solutions. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On February 09 2011 05:32 ToxNub wrote: which also have a very simple solution seeing how every single nation follows the exact same four step pattern, so we know what needs to be done to solve it. Hence why nobody gives a crap, people love figuring out a solution but they very rarely care enough to make it happen. I find it appalling that the only real part of this concern has been glossed over by so many people. The issue is not that we will get 40 billion people, and then go extinct because nobody has enough food. That is not the problem. The absolute worst case is that some people die and the population goes back down. There is no way for this to even be a problem, so quit talking about it. The issue is not about personal space. It's not like you just divide the land evenly and say, look, this is lots of space. It has nothing to do with space. I'm sure we can all fit comfortably in antarctica, though I heard the weather is unpleasant... The issue is about quality of life. Overpopulation is not linked to some mystical doomsday event, it is linked to poverty and disease and human suffering. Specifically local overpopulation, in areas that cannot support the resource drain. Waving your hands around, posting a shitty link about how the population is going to stabilize is fucking retarded. No shit.... what you should be concerned about is that "stabilize" can mean a lot of suffering. We certainly ought to have the foresight to avoid it. Overpopulation is a real problem that causes real suffering and deserves real solutions. | ||
|
misaTO
Argentina204 Posts
On February 08 2011 16:56 spkim1 wrote: These days, I hear so often people panicking about overpopulation. Among the lectures I attend professors in up to three courses (ECON 221, ECON 211, and EOSC 114) freak out as to how fast world population is growing and how soon we will run short of resources to upkeep us all. My Econ 211 professor told me last month that our population reached 7 billion now. "That means we've got another China within the past few decades". So my question is: Why do we have overpopulation ? And furthermore, will that really bring us all to doom ? Here's my logic: in most economically developed countries, the trend nowadays is to have few children, if not none, per married couple. Many couples actually decide not to even have children, and many others just want one or two children. In my case, most couples around me in the three places I've lived in (Seoul South Korea, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and Geneva, Switzerland) want at most two children. The reasons can extend from personal preferrence to economic issues. It takes two children per couple to keep a population growth rate of 0. Of course, you will tell me that such is not the case in developing countries, and that birth rates are far greater in the Third World. And this is where I also think is the problem. So here's another follow-up question: Why do these people keep giving births ? Even in developed countries, having two children presents to be an incredible economic burden. So for these people, if they have several children, I'm just lost for words. What are they thinking ? In effect, I'm just arguing the Malthusian trap here. If every person in a less developed country were 1. Engaged to one person of the opposite sex only 2, had two or less children per couple then the people will benefit from not only a huge uplifting of economic burden, but will also contribute to slowing down the rate of population growth. Furthermore, even the countries' GDP might increase, since there will be far less people to treat for Malaria and other deadly diseases. Here's one more thing to consider. If less developed countries are the ones contributing to overpopulation (although I am aware that India plays a huge part too - I'm leaving China out because they have that one-child policy going now), then the problem of overpopulation is also an issue that will be concentrated in the less-developed countries, right ? In a globalization-perspective, the stable population in developed countries will barely suffer since they will just import the resources from less developed countries and just maintain their own resources to a consistent level. Does this mean doom will be unleashed only in less developped countries, the (partial) cause of the issue ? Please enlighten me Edit: Here's something else I don't understand. Clearly the developed countries have things to learn from, like the culture of being engaged to only one person. This culture has been adapted by other cultures even though this used to be contrary to their original customs (e.g. Japan), because it is a useful aspect of western culture. Why are the developed countries so stubborn and do not adopt these customs themselves ? We always hear about promoting education to these people, but where is the result ? THe whole post made me laugh. When are the "developed" countries going to realize that in a global perspective, the problems of humanity even if they happen in north sudan, should be their primary concern? Srsly.- It's extremely wrong not to help someone just because of "we do not have enough resources." The World has been producing unbelievable amounts of wealth, the problem here is actually sharing them. Did you know that more than half of the world's wealth is owned only by 257 people? Thats a fucking distribution disaster. Fuck capitalism. | ||
|
wakefield
United Kingdom114 Posts
On February 09 2011 06:48 misaTO wrote: THe whole post made me laugh. When are the "developed" countries going to realize that in a global perspective, the problems of humanity even if they happen in north sudan, should be their primary concern? Srsly.- It's extremely wrong not to help someone just because of "we do not have enough resources." The World has been producing unbelievable amounts of wealth, the problem here is actually sharing them. Did you know that more than half of the world's wealth is owned only by 257 people? Thats a fucking distribution disaster. Fuck capitalism. Oh hello there socialist. See, the world has scarce resources and the allocation has to be dealt with in the most effective manner. Since we are divided mainly by countries (then the EU is on a lesser extent), the governments provide the resources they can afford to purchase mainly in their own country, as that increases the consumer satisfaction of the population of their own country, ending up in votes coming in. Then on an individual level, the same sort of principle applies where people have an instinct to survive resulting in natural greed to a certain extent. Some people may be 'charitable' but they dont spend the majority of their income on others not related to them at all, do they? Therefore when countries and individuals develop on a financial level, the majority of their funds are in their possesion. Then as there was slow amounts of development when a country is in a developing country their population increases resulting in population growth. We shouldn't be scared of population growth because with that comes economical growth as the whole country of the increasing population gets more developed. | ||
|
Passion
Netherlands1486 Posts
Furthermore, what (national) economy did ever benefit from having a decreased amount of raw manpower at its disposal? To continue in that line, one of the real issues with overpopulation in the developed world rather is the massive amount of elderly people compared to the size of the labour force, i.e. not enough children. How do you intend to solve that issue? Finally, to answer your question: yes, doom will be unleashed upon us. Once again. As it has been so many times before, sooner or later, on whatever scale. It would be foolish to asume our society so perfect this will never happen. In any case, to get back to where we started, it seems brutal to take away something that can be considered at least a human right if not human nature. In case disaster does strike, it's good we'll all still be in the mood of doing it (without protection). I hope you feel enlightened :o | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On February 09 2011 01:43 TheKing. wrote: i really do not think overpopulation will ever happen. There will always be people that have a butt-load of kids and those who do not have any. I am not sure how to explain it but i can promise there will not be an "overpopulation" of humans on earth. Overpopulation already happened. The current number of people on earth can't live at the current standard of living indefinitely. Not only is oil running out, but so is wood and a number of other natural materials that get get harvested and used faster then they can be reproduced. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Classic vs Clem
FEL
Elazer vs Spirit
Gerald vs MaNa
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
