World population...declining?

Related:
Create New Tag

3/15/2018 1:57 PM

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/11/overcrowding-nah-the-worlds-population-may-actually-be-declining/

Interesting...I know there was some discussion in other threads about overcrowding and not enough resources on the planet to feed/house everyone...I saw this article today and figured I'd share it..(It's a little old)

"But it turns out the world’s population isn’t growing nearly as fast as it once did. In fact, experts say the rate of population growth will continue to slow and that the total population will eventually — likely within our lifetimes — fall."

"This isn’t news for two of the world’s most populous countries, Japan and Russia, which as TIME reported in 2011 are both facing rapidly declining birthrates. In general, developed countries where more women have the means for financial independence and motherhood isn’t a given are facing much slower rates of population growth. Many Western European countries have birthrates below the population-replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman: Spain and Italy are tied at 1.4; Holland and Belgium, 1.8; and Germany is at 1.36."

|

3/15/2018 2:16 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/15/2018 2:17 PM

Global population MAY fall, but don't expect national populations in first world countries to follow the trend. Our birth rate may be below the replacement rate but our population is still growing....go figure

|

3/15/2018 2:30 PM

Andy_Greenney wrote:

Global population MAY fall, but don't expect national populations in first world countries to follow the trend. Our birth rate ...more

GBR must be growing from immigration? Isn't that what will drive first would countries population growth once their birth rate falls below the replacement rate? That's all I can think of....

And looking into this further...it looks like world population will peak at about 9.5 Billion...then start declining...somewhere around 2050. So we've got a long ways to go (up) before it starts coming down.

America's birthrate is 1.84...population still growing.

|

3/15/2018 2:36 PM

The one I can't figure out...with regards to the birth rate...is China...it was like in the 70's or something they passed that law of 1 child per family (or something like that)...well below the replacement birth rate...yet their population continues to increase..and steadily...since that time.

Are there a lot of people immigrating to China?

|

3/15/2018 2:46 PM

Titan1 wrote:

GBR must be growing from immigration? Isn't that what will drive first would countries population growth once their birth rate ...more

Yes population growth here is now driven by immigration, the indigenous birth rate is below replacement. It wouldn't be a bad idea if immigration allowance was based on the previous years birth rate, i.e. maintaining or reducing the national population, of course that would never happen.
Ultimately looking at our age demographics we need a level of immigration to sustain an ageing population. To bad they aren't building the infrastructure and resources to cater for the population.

|

3/15/2018 2:57 PM

my guess is the gender-neutral idiots have a little to do with the numbers. how do you pro-create if you don't have a specific gender?

just sayin

|

3/15/2018 3:50 PM

peelout wrote:

my guess is the gender-neutral idiots have a little to do with the numbers. how do you pro-create if you don't have a specific ...more

Iam still pumping my wife full of kids daily. #contributions

|

3/15/2018 4:02 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/15/2018 4:02 PM

Titan1 wrote:

The one I can't figure out...with regards to the birth rate...is China...it was like in the 70's or something they passed that ...more

i think the 1 child policy had alot of exceptions, , people in the provinces could still have as many as they liked,
from wiki

The one-child policy, a part of the family planning policy, was a population planning policy of China. It was introduced in 1979 and began to be formally phased out near the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016. The policy was only enforced on Han Chinese and allowed exceptions for many groups, including ethnic minorities. In 2007, 36% of China's population was subject to a strict one-child restriction, with an additional 53% being allowed to have a second child if the first child was a girl. Provincial governments imposed fines for violations, and the local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.
|

3/15/2018 4:36 PM

Titan1 wrote:

The one I can't figure out...with regards to the birth rate...is China...it was like in the 70's or something they passed that ...more

scott_nz wrote:

i think the 1 child policy had alot of exceptions, , people in the provinces could still have as many as they liked,
from ...more

Right on! Thanks for that info. I wasn’t aware of that.

|

3/16/2018 8:37 AM

peelout wrote:

my guess is the gender-neutral idiots have a little to do with the numbers. how do you pro-create if you don't have a specific ...more

No that means they can reproduce asexually

|

3/16/2018 8:43 AM

More drugs, more Darwin Award type people, more gays, problem solved.

|

3/16/2018 3:25 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/16/2018 3:29 PM

The population growth rate has been in decline, but it's still a positive number and the total number of people is still increasing. They're saying about 10 billion people on this rock by 2050, it's under 8 billion now.

References: Google

|

3/16/2018 9:22 PM

Ebs wrote:

The population growth rate has been in decline, but it's still a positive number and the total number of people is still ...more

I wonder what the tipping point is.

There has to be a number where even all the GMO's and water purification simply cant keep up.


It'd be nice if the whole world went to a 1 child per family system until we got things back under 500 million total world population but that goes against everything we're wired to do so it's a really tall order. Fighting human nature is sorta pissing in the wind.

It's gonna take some sort of natural disaster to violently correct things.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 8:03 AM

I just saw something saying that by 2035 elderly will outnumber kids children for the first time ever in the US.

|

3/17/2018 8:05 AM

Ebs wrote:

The population growth rate has been in decline, but it's still a positive number and the total number of people is still ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

I wonder what the tipping point is.

There has to be a number where even all the GMO's and water purification simply cant ...more

With current birth rates...the population will continue to increase to 9.5 Billion in 2050 and then begin to drop. But as I’ve read more on it...some experts are thinking the birth rate will continue to drop world wide...which means the population will start dropping before 9.5 Billion and before 2050.

|

3/17/2018 9:43 AM

Titan1 wrote:

With current birth rates...the population will continue to increase to 9.5 Billion in 2050 and then begin to drop. But as I’ve ...more

I wonder what the reason for this trend is.

I'd say it could be our diets are making for less healthy people and thus less healthy sperm/etc. But most of the world doesnt eat as unhealthy as America so that theory should only apply to us, not worldwide.

Is it because having a child in a developed country is so cost prohibitive? I honestly dont see people putting that much thought into it. But I could be wrong.

Is nature somehow correcting itself? Is the gene pool too thinned out?

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 10:27 AM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

I wonder what the tipping point is.

There has to be a number where even all the GMO's and water purification simply cant ...more

Titan1 wrote:

With current birth rates...the population will continue to increase to 9.5 Billion in 2050 and then begin to drop. But as I’ve ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

I wonder what the reason for this trend is.

I'd say it could be our diets are making for less healthy people and thus less ...more

I have no idea...probably all of the things you mentioned...I also think that in developed counties, I think smaller families are preferred-and is some cases some people are choosing not to have children at all...and with modern birth control, parents can actually control the size of their family.

|

3/18/2018 10:18 AM

We have a lot of demographic momentum right now. That is, we have 4 generations currently alive. Boomers, X, Y, and Z.

Come 2025 or so, the Boomers will start to really thin out and Generations Y and Z will likely not have enough kids to replace them. When that happens, populations will top out and then start to go down. Immigration isn't a cure-all. Paying fair wages for fair work and women losing their hypergamy instinct would fix the problem. Not gonna happen!

Many Boomers will have more kids than grandchildren. This has probably never happened before.

We had a baby boom after WWII. We will have a death boom 70 years later.

That said, I'd rather work an enjoyable job and moto down than raise a family. And dealing with Gen. Y women over 28 (whose eggs are running out and in a full-court press to find a "high-earner" before it is too late) is about as much fun as racing 450s on a 125. And I'm no Johnnie O or Lammy!




|

"Thank God my father wasn't rich."
-Hurricane

"You wouldn't take clay to Southwick, so why take sand to Red Bud?"
-DV

"I ride a two-stroke because I am Weigandt-level cheap"
-Me

3/18/2018 1:22 PM



Photo


|

3/18/2018 2:12 PM

Is it the ugly or dumb people dying off?

|

3/18/2018 8:04 PM

kkawboy14 wrote:

Is it the ugly or dumb people dying off?

Intelligent folks are dying off. The more education and income people tend to have, the smaller the family size. This makes sense economically within the family, but is big trouble for the economy as a whole.

The government subsidizes reproduction through tax deductions, food stamps, and public education, so people of limited means are enabled to have more kids than they can afford. And of course the intelligent and hard-working people have to shell out a ton of cash to fund these programs, reducing their ability to find a mate and breed.

Also, women have done better in the workforce but still demand a male with more resources to mate with due to hypergamy. But of course there aren't enough single high-earning men available for them, especially after they turn 30.

Let the good times roll!



|

"Thank God my father wasn't rich."
-Hurricane

"You wouldn't take clay to Southwick, so why take sand to Red Bud?"
-DV

"I ride a two-stroke because I am Weigandt-level cheap"
-Me