And safer highways because of all the #&^% slow-driving q-tips. As a Floridian, I can tell you that’s a mixed blessing. :mad:
I would also think that places like China or India could stand to lose a lot more people as well.
The fertility rate in China is below 1.8 which is below the United States at 2.05. I don’t think China has done full Census since the 1980s. When I was reading “Poorly Made In China”, the author claimed that the population is actually declining in China, but that the provincial governors exaggerate the population in their provinces for political reasons. It might not be obvious with so many people moving from the countryside into the cities.
I think it’s worth noting that a replacement rate of births for a country with a billion people is a hell of a lot higher than a replacement rate for a country with 30 million people. You could possibly argue that a replacement rate of births is a luxury you can’t afford when your population is already too high for sustainability.
Just as we could stand to consume less. I’m not saying that either situation is morally or ethically superior, but sometimes these debates come down to two sides pointing fingers at each other, one saying “You’re consuming too much!” and the other saying “You’re procreating too much!”. Over-consumption and overpopulation both lead to resource depletion.
I was a freshman in college the year you were born. In California, I think my time was probably the best for college students, because I was in the later half of the baby boom and California had just finished a period of major expansions in the public universities. I went to UCSD which was only about eleven years old at the time, but had already been able to seed its faculty with luminaries of science and humanities. Moreover, the public schools I attended up to then had been excellent as well. The population of California has grown all my life, but up to that point the growth was being well accommodated.
The days of labour intensive industries are over due to automation, mechanisation and computerisation.
One person in an office on a P.C. now does the work of a roomfull.
On construction sites where even in my memory you had a good many men armed with picks and shovels digging out foundations, you now have one man and an excavator doing the same amount of work in a fraction of the time.
Its the same situation in industry and agriculture.
This hasn’t been brought about by any fears of a declining population by business leaders but because its more profitable and much more efficient.
The RATE of child birth may allegedly be going down in some countries, but thats not the same as the actual population numbers going down.
They aren’t and quite frankly you’d have to be a very, very optimistic person to believe that they will in the future based only by current figures.
So in the future far from all the extras mouths helping society by paying with their taxes for the old, hospitals, schools etc. those very mouths will be in direct competition for what resources there are with the former.
Because many of them will be on permament welfare, or government funded "Make work "projects.
And it doesn’t take a genius to work out what effect large numbers of bored, life long, unemployed young adults will have on crime statistics and possibly violent, political unrest.
Of course the people who regulary trot out the old chestnut that we need more and more people on the planet to supposedly pay for old people never explain what happens when the planet is totally and utterly full.
Which of course is logicaly inevitable if we follow their direction.
Read this news item today and thought would post here rather than make a new thread. Germany now has the lowest birth rate in world.
How will this effect them. Won’t you have fewer people to do lesser jobs.
The Germans are planning less jobs anyway, due to robotics.
If the German birt rate numbers are correct, Germany will have quite a surplus of housing in years to come. Of course, if Germany were to allow unlimited immigration (from Africa and Asia), it would become something not quite German-would it be possible to have Germany become a muslim country, within 2-3 generations?
True. But in places like China, India and Brazil, much of the country’s economy and infrastructure can’t support the population it has. Which is why you have massive shanty-towns and favelas.
In contrast, cities like Detroit can’t support the infrastructure it has because the population has decline from a million people to closer to 600,000. Which is why they have huge swaths of the city that are abandoned and reverting back to nature.
No. Germany actually promoted immigration from Turkey when its birth rate began falling in the 1990s (though the plan was for the Turks to be guest workers only) and its Turkish population is still only 5% Muslim. In any event, Germany is a majority-atheist state, not a Christian-majority state.
To address a couple of the disadvantages that people have pointed to
-
the ratio of workers/younger age folks to older age folks. Yes this is an issue, the main reason it is so, is that in the US the pension scheme and Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, if (and it isn’t easy) we can adjust to a scheme where each generation saves and provides for their own retirement then the ratio doesn’t matter. And in any case depending on an always expanding younger population base isn’t sustainable even at current levels, so a solution has to be found to this problem. So its a disadvantage we have to solve anyways and the later date we start to solve it the more expensive it is.
-
Rate of innovation/invention. All else being equal, yes more population equals more innovation, however at this point we are not at that point, as only a small fraction of the worlds population contributes to innovation (as it requires systems, education etc etc), we could easily reduce overall population by a huge amount, and provide good education and systems to the rest and we would have more innovation than we have today.
-
Valid point that the environmental effects are mainly due to the small percentage who are wealthy, so its not the overall population that is causing the harm. However, one would assume we as humans would like to see overall poverty decline and everyone on earth to have same opportunities that are available to the wealthy, like clean water, clean air, good schools, a good diet, a chance to own a home etc etc, and so whatever population level is, we are hopefully moving to increasing everyone’s esp. the bottom 95% wealth and as they grow wealthier their impact also grows. So the larger the population and the fact its growing means a more difficult problem re sustainability/environmental impact.
S
A declining population isn’t good at all. You see, we must keep churning out new generations of slaves to support the older generation of slaves when they can no longer work. And those new generation slaves will require a newer generation of slaves to support them when they can no longer work. And ad infinitum. Until the sun goes nova.
Nope.
The US has comparatively low unemployment, and it’s been like that throughout the modern era. You have to go back to the great depression for the last major spike, and even then, go back a few more years and you see 5% unemployment again.
It’s such a simple thing to note the date of an OP, and yet it seems like so few actually do it.
That statement Mijin was responding to was wrong in 2010 as well, so not sure pointing out this is a zombie thread is really relevant to the response.
Thanks XT.
Yeah, once a zombie thread is reopened it’s worth pointing out any incorrect premises in the OP, even if the OP him/her self is not around to respond. Unemployment in 2010 was higher than now, but still low by (non-recession) international standards.
I find it very interesting that two separate people have somehow forgotten that in 2010, we were in the throes of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Firstly, no I haven’t, but secondly how would that support the premise of the OP?
What the OP said was this:
So trying to claim a link between increasing population and high unemployment and citing high unemployment in the US as support for that. But in fact it counters his claim, as the US has had a significantly-increasing population for basically its whole history, yet unemployment has remained flat for about 150 years, with just relatively short-term wriggles up and down.
Even if unemployment was 25% in 2010 (hint: it wasn’t) that particular snapshot would be insufficient to support his claim.