# Children, Population Growth and Society **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760 "2009-04-02T20:29:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/81 "2009-04-06T15:47:13Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > China seems to have a very workable system. Older people live with their adult children and play the role of primary caregiver to their grandchildren (as well as taking care of household chores). It frees up young adults to work, gives the older people a sense of purpose, and ensures that children are spoiled rotten. > **[Little emperor syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Emperor_Syndrome)** > > The little emperors (or little emperor effect) is an aspect or view of the People's Republic of China's one-child policy. It occurs where children of the modern upper class and wealthier Chinese families, gain seemingly excessive amounts of attention from their parents and grandparents. Combined with increased spending power within the family unit due to China's growing economic strength, and parents' general desire for their child to experience the benefits they themselves were denied, the ph Li... > [@](#): > > Socio-economical and psychological implications > > Parents turn to heavy investment on their only child partly in order to relive their own dreams and aspirations. They see themselves in the development of their child and completely focus their lives on them. With parents constantly predicting and telling of high hopes for the future, the child is established as the main focus of the family. > > Experts suggest that too much care and pampering may result in the child ending up incapable of leading a confident future life.[5] Many youngsters do not get exposed to life’s realities and in many cases the parents’ only goal is to get their child into a good slot at a respected university.[6] The truth is that only a little more than 10% of high school students in China can hope to get into a college.[7] > > There are known connections between the syndrome and type 2 diabetes, often a result of obesity[8]. As the population pyramid in China is top heavy, all four grandparents are usually still alive and have been known to over nourish their grandchildren, creating a generation of overweight spoiled boys and girls. [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/11/1171](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/11/1171) > [@](#): > > Ratio of Old-age Dependency > > The rapid decrease in the birth rate, combined with stable or improving life expectancy, has led to an increasing proportion of elderly people and an increase in the ratio between elderly parents and adult children.30 In China, the percentage of the population over the age of 65 years was 5 percent in 1982 and now stands at 7.5 percent but is expected to rise to more than 15 percent by 2025.28 Although these figures are lower than those in most industrialized countries (especially Japan, where the proportion of people over the age of 65 years is 20 percent), a lack of adequate pension coverage in China means that financial dependence on offspring is still necessary for approximately 70 percent of elderly people.31 Pension coverage is available only to those employed in the government sector and large companies. In China, this problem has been named the “4:2:1” phenomenon, meaning that increasing numbers of couples will be solely responsible for the care of one child and four parents. > > Initiatives are under way to improve access to government pensions and to encourage saving for private pensions in an attempt to reduce the burden of the 4:2:1 phenomenon.7 In addition, a specific measure has been introduced to address the problem: in urban areas, couples who are themselves both only children are allowed to have more than one child. As only children reach reproductive age, many couples will meet these criteria, though how many will take advantage of the opportunity to have more than one child remains to be seen. What proponents of population control don’t realize because they often seem not to understand the difference between money and production, is that 1 child has to take care of two parents. The Confucian system of the past where the children took care of the parents had a much more distributed system of care for those adults. The problem here is that even if they tried to get caregivers for their elderly parents they are still relying on a population of fewer younger people to care for older people. So a family that cares for its parents can be a couple with four parents to care for. Imagine if you and your spouse had to provide for all of the care of all four parents. You can say that you’d hire people to help you, but the reality is that all the people who might help you are in a similar predicament. Maybe you’re wealthy enough to hire someone still, but that person might be caring for your parents in order to care for their own parents. ---
**Author:** ![hdc\_bst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@hdc\_bst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hdc_bst)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/82 "2009-04-06T18:33:38Z")
I’ll try to catch up with this thread this evening, but after a quick review it seems that **mswas** is very eloquently arguing from the same position I hold. Two quick points… Yes, having children is a selfish decision. In a world with free will, nearly every decision can be cast as a selfish decision. I believe that it is a selfish decision that is socially responsible and beneficial. (Having children and then abandoning the responsibility associated with them is not responsible or beneficial. I do not believe that this is as common as people seem to think.) > [@mswas](#): > > You can say that you’d hire people to help you, but the reality is that all the people who might help you are in a similar predicament. Maybe you’re wealthy enough to hire someone still, but that person might be caring for your parents in order to care for their own parents. This nicely illustrates one of my points regarding retirement. Saving for retirement is an excellent, noble thing. But, as a strategy, it is based on the assumption that society will continue much as it has been. This assumption strongly depends on people reproducing near the replacement rate. A significant decline in the number of births will eventually translate into massive price inflation for the services needed by the retired (be it golf-course maintenance, RV service and repair, or nursing care). ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/83 "2009-04-06T22:06:24Z")
> [@](#): > > [Little emperor syndrome - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Emperor_Syndrome) > > Socio-economical and psychological implications > > Parents turn to heavy investment on their only child partly in order to relive their own dreams and aspirations. They see themselves in the development of their child and completely focus their lives on them. With parents constantly predicting and telling of high hopes for the future, the child is established as the main focus of the family. > > Experts suggest that too much care and pampering may result in the child ending up incapable of leading a confident future life.[5] Many youngsters do not get exposed to life’s realities and in many cases the parents’ only goal is to get their child into a good slot at a respected university.[6] The truth is that only a little more than 10% of high school students in China can hope to get into a college.[7] > > There are known connections between the syndrome and type 2 diabetes, often a result of obesity[8]. As the population pyramid in China is top heavy, all four grandparents are usually still alive and have been known to over nourish their grandchildren, creating a generation of overweight spoiled boys and girls. I am not sure if this is a joke. Obesity in China? Come on! ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/84 "2009-04-06T22:51:17Z")
> [@hdc\_bst](#): > > I’ll try to catch up with this thread this evening, but after a quick review it seems that **mswas** is very eloquently arguing from the same position I hold. > > Two quick points… > > Yes, having children is a selfish decision. In a world with free will, nearly every decision can be cast as a selfish decision. I believe that it is a selfish decision that is socially responsible and beneficial. (Having children and then abandoning the responsibility associated with them is not responsible or beneficial. I do not believe that this is as common as people seem to think.) > > This nicely illustrates one of my points regarding retirement. Saving for retirement is an excellent, noble thing. But, as a strategy, it is based on the assumption that society will continue much as it has been. This assumption strongly depends on people reproducing near the replacement rate. A significant decline in the number of births will eventually translate into massive price inflation for the services needed by the retired (be it golf-course maintenance, RV service and repair, or nursing care). Right, the people who are thinking in terms of money are not thinking about how the market for home-care for the elderly might change. Those who don’t have kids might want to visit an old folks home and realize that at 85 they will have no one coming to vist them in one of those homes. They should also visit different ones across the various monetary levels and note that if there is an over-abundance of old people and not enough young workers they will become even more expensive and be constantly under threat due to a shortage of qualified workers. If they end up at the lower end of the class scale in one of those homes then they will be at one that cannot afford the best caregivers. So they will spend the last days of their lives with bedsores among the smell of piss and vomit, with people who don’t really care about working there, as the motivated individuals will be working in the homes that can afford better workers. Of course, right to die laws will probably come into fashion as a necessity, and this will likely alleviate some of the burden. It’s all well and good to responsibly save for one’s own retirement, but if there are not enough productive workers in 60 years, one’s IRA might not go as far as people think it should. Social Security might break down. Those of us who have children may very well have children that just are not around to take care of business either and might end up in the same predicament. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/85 "2009-04-06T22:52:18Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I am not sure if this is a joke. Obesity in China? Come on! I think they are talking mainly about the younger generation who are still children now, but I have never been to China so I simply don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/86 "2009-04-07T04:16:49Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > As we move into a phase where retirees outnumber the workforce, however, there becomes a problem. More people will need to have kids to balance it out. I don’t think those who can’t or won’t reproduce should work twice as hard as those who do, but it will be on the shoulders of everyone, seniors and childless included, to keep the society from crashing. I don’t tend to think this will be true, at least not in our lifetimes. There are tons of unemployed people out there so it appears that we could retire quite a few old people before we started to run out of workers. And, I don’t know what it is like elsewhere, but California has workers flowing across our southern border every day. If you run out where you are, we have plenty! > [@](#): > > In fairness, I don’t see how a childless person is any more a “net consumer” in retirement than someone who has kids is. The one with the kid is still retired, and is consuming as much as the one without. Apparently, if you have had kids, you get to claim their jobs as yours. Setting aside the idea that means you had kids to sort of sell them into slavery to support your retirement, it still doesn’t make any more sense than claiming that having a child divides the parents’ carbon footprint into three instead of two. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/87 "2009-04-07T04:55:12Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I didn’t make the argument that anyone is more of a net consumer of resources than anyone else, merely that there has to be a proper balance of young workers to support the old. If you don’t have a kid then someone out there has to have three to ensure that the economic balance is maintained. You haven’t noticed that even in good times, we still have quite a few unemployed people here? You do not need to have three children to make up for my lack of them since we already have more workers than we have jobs. Particularly since you most likely will not live as many years in retirement as your children will live as workers. So, rather than you needing to make up for some contribution to the work force you think I should have made, if you have more than 1 child you are probably having more than your “allotment”. > [@](#): > > **curlcoat** One thing I will respond to. I don’t believe that overpopulation is the problem you think it is. I already agreed that having children is a selfish choice, but I disagree with your idea that it is irresponsible to have children. The continuation of the species is what I care about and to continue we must have children. It is not necessary for everyone, or even most everyone to have children in order to be sure that the species will continue. Actually, given examples of what happens in animals that are overcrowded, if the human population keeps growing we may end up killing ourselves off either on purpose or because disease/famine wipes us out. For example, even if you don’t care about all of the other species on the planet, if we keep using cropland to build houses on, eventually we aren’t going to have enough land to grow food on. > [@](#): > > And yes I find the way you characterize children and parenthood to be utterly repulsive. Saying that having children is selfish and self centered is utterly repulsive? > [@](#): > > I don’t think that it’s equally valid, and I have not seen a good argument for it. It seems purely based off of emotion. Also, I at one time believed it too, but since I have learned more about demographics and how the history of first world nations I believe it less and less. I’m not sure what you are talking about here since this was right after telling me that my views on children and parenthood are repulsive, but this seems to be more about your opinion on overpopulation. > [@](#): > > To **both** of you. Yes, population reduction IS ultimately a good thing, but population growth worldwide is abating, so I don’t see it as anything we have to make a huge push to promote. If it’s true that the population worldwide is going down (I don’t know) that is a good thing, but the population where you and I live, here in the US, is going up, by a lot. And this is where we live. Partially this is because those who want children feel they have the right to have them, as many as they want; and partially because of immigration. However, again, this isn’t likely to be an issue for me as a serious lack of resources probably won’t happen in my lifetime, and I don’t have any children to worry about what sort of world I’m leaving them. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/88 "2009-04-07T05:09:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Right, the people who are thinking in terms of money are not thinking about how the market for home-care for the elderly might change. Those who don’t have kids might want to visit an old folks home and realize that at 85 they will have no one coming to vist them in one of those homes. That old chestnut. You do realize that there are people who had multiple children who die alone without visitors in old age homes? Actually, it seems like most of the people that end up there do so because noone wanted to have them in their homes when they got old and could no longer take care of themselves, by themselves. So having children doesn’t mean that you will not die alone and forgotten in a rest home. > [@](#): > > They should also visit different ones across the various monetary levels and note that if there is an over-abundance of old people and not enough young workers they will become even more expensive and be constantly under threat due to a shortage of qualified workers. OTOH, if the population keeps growing, they are going to need more houses, more schools, more playgrounds, more businesses - where are you going to put those rest homes? > [@](#): > > If they end up at the lower end of the class scale in one of those homes then they will be at one that cannot afford the best caregivers. So they will spend the last days of their lives with bedsores among the smell of piss and vomit, with people who don’t really care about working there, as the motivated individuals will be working in the homes that can afford better workers. Those who have not had children will probably end up having more money to spend on a good rest home… 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/89 "2009-04-07T11:14:20Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Except that in all my time and travels in China I have found that children are not spoiled at all and are much more respectful of me than western children are. So it seems they have found the right combination of love and affection and teaching them respect and values. Well, the children never act up like Western children do because they never get the chance to. Kids throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. Chinese children, in my experience, always get their way. For example, I lived with a host family with an eleven year old boy. One sunny weekend we went out to a large public park, intending to picnic. It took some effort to get there- it was on the other side of the city and we had to change buses. We stepped into the park, bought some snacks and drinks, and set out to find a shady spot. Then, there was a bit of whispering and suddenly everyone threw their snacks away and we rushed to the exit. I asked what happened. I was told the child decided he’d rather spend the day watching TV. So, without one word we all went home and they spent their Saturday bringing the kid snacks while he sat on the couch watching TV. This was SOP for family events. Little Emperor Syndrome is real, though most suspect it’s being overhyped for some agenda. The worst effects of it don’t show up until early adulthood. I teach college students, and maturity-wise it’s like teaching middle school students. I could go on, but needless to say it is a pretty big cultural challenge. The sense of obligation is also pretty intense. Young adults are not allowed to forget for even a second that they need to pay back ten fold all that childhood pampering. FWIW, around here beating is common. I was surprised when my students started sharing “the day my dad beat me” stories. I was shocked when they laughing recounted bloody backs and broken bones. Child obesity is on the rise. You NEVER see a chubby older person. You rarely see a chubby teen. But fat kids are pretty common. On the other hand, anorexia is entrenched in female culture, and it’s a status symbol for girls to faint in class. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/90 "2009-04-07T16:11:33Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I am not sure if this is a joke. Obesity in China? Come on! Obesity in China is a serious problem. [Cite](http://www.bjreview.com.cn/letter/txt/2008-10/20/content_157570.htm) [Cite](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16652128) > [@](#): > > RESULTS: Between 1992 and 2002, the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased in all gender and age groups and in all geographic areas. Using the World Health Organization body mass index cut points, the combined prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 14.6 to 21.8%. The Chinese obesity standard shows an increase from 20.0 to 29.9%. The annual increase rate was highest in men aged 18-44 years and women aged 45-59 years (approximately 1.6 and 1.0% points, respectively). In general, male subjects, urban residents, and high-income groups had a greater increase. With the increase in overweight and obesity, obesity-, and diet-related chronic diseases (e.g., hypertension, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and type 2 diabetes) also increased over the past decade and became a more important preventable cause of death. [Cite](http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/chinas-child-obesity-problem-ballooning/) > [@](#): > > Child obesity is ballooning into a big problem in China as ‘little emperors’ are increasingly getting an appetite for the Western couch-potato way of life, according to a study presented in Geneva. > > Almost one in five children under seven is overweight and more than seven percent are obese, according to a study of the Chinese National Task Force on Childhood Obesity, presented at the sidelines of the annual meeting of the World Health Organisation. > > “These numbers are higher than in European countries, while the gross domestic product in China is much lower,” said Ding Zongyi, who led the study. [One more for good measure](http://english.cri.cn/4026/2008/11/14/53s423950.htm) > [@](#): > > According to a new study in the journal ‘Health Affairs’, more than 25% Chinese adults are considered overweight or obese, and the rate could double by 2028 if the problem is not addressed. What’s more, a bigger concern for researchers is that the number of overweight and obese children and teenagers is also increasing. Zhang Yan is a paediatric doctor who has witnessed many such cases. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/91 "2009-04-07T16:43:39Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Apparently, if you have had kids, you get to claim their jobs as yours. Setting aside the idea that means you had kids to sort of sell them into slavery to support your retirement, it still doesn’t make any more sense than claiming that having a child divides the parents’ carbon footprint into three instead of two. Are you not good at math or what? Three people produce a carbon footprint of three people, period. The child is a person. And there is nothing dishonorable at all about producing children to continue to support the species. That is some pretty immature thinking there. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/92 "2009-04-07T16:49:35Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You haven’t noticed that even in good times, we still have quite a few unemployed people here? You do not need to have three children to make up for my lack of them since we already have more workers than we have jobs. Particularly since you most likely will not live as many years in retirement as your children will live as workers. So, rather than you needing to make up for some contribution to the work force you think I should have made, if you have more than 1 child you are probably having more than your “allotment”. You really need to pay attention. America is not in the process of demographic decline, though MOST developed nations are. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. There is no such thing as an ‘allotment’ for children. And America has pretty low unemployment perennially. Right now we are in a pretty hard recession, but when we’re not we have pretty low unemployment. > [@](#): > > It is not necessary for everyone, or even most everyone to have children in order to be sure that the species will continue. Actually, given examples of what happens in animals that are overcrowded, if the human population keeps growing we may end up killing ourselves off either on purpose or because disease/famine wipes us out. For example, even if you don’t care about all of the other species on the planet, if we keep using cropland to build houses on, eventually we aren’t going to have enough land to grow food on. Right, some of us find the health of the species and not its mere survival to be important. > [@](#): > > Saying that having children is selfish and self centered is utterly repulsive. No. That’s simply true. Saying that it is a bad thing to have more than one child is utterly repulsive. Just because something is selfish or self-centered doesn’t make it wrong. I’d like to point out with all your going on the offensive to defend your way of life, you are actually the ONLY person in this thread attacking the way of life of others. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you are talking about here since this was right after telling me that my views on children and parenthood are repulsive, but this seems to be more about your opinion on overpopulation. Right, overpopulation is essentially an emotional canard that some people simply accept as truth. It’s dogmatic and ignores a whole host of demographic criteria. > [@](#): > > If it’s true that the population worldwide is going down (I don’t know) that is a good thing, but the population where you and I live, here in the US, is going up, by a lot. And this is where we live. Partially this is because those who want children feel they have the right to have them, as many as they want; and partially because of immigration. However, again, this isn’t likely to be an issue for me as a serious lack of resources probably won’t happen in my lifetime, and I don’t have any children to worry about what sort of world I’m leaving them. The world population isn’t going down. The rate of population growth is going down rapidly. IE, it ballooned in the 20th century but is tapering off now. The US Population growth is going up due to immigration, not breeding. If we didn’t have immigration our population would remain stable. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/93 "2009-04-07T17:00:17Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > That old chestnut. You do realize that there are people who had multiple children who die alone without visitors in old age homes? Yes, it’s something I acknlowledged in the post you are responding to here. > [@](#): > > Actually, it seems like most of the people that end up there do so because noone wanted to have them in their homes when they got old and could no longer take care of themselves, by themselves. So having children doesn’t mean that you will not die alone and forgotten in a rest home. Nope it doesn’t, it just means it’s more likely. My wife’s Grandmother is in a pretty nice home, and it makes all the difference that her daughter, my mother-in-law comes to see her regularly and make sure they are taking good care of her. The thing is, it’s not even that these old people get that way because no one likes them, sometimes they just outlive everyone they know. > [@](#): > > OTOH, if the population keeps growing, they are going to need more houses, more schools, more playgrounds, more businesses - where are you going to put those rest homes? Heh, well right now we have a surplus of homes, overproduction in the 90s and 00s has resulted in hundreds of thousands of vacant properties nationwide. So I find it to be of little concern. > [@](#): > > Those who have not had children will probably end up having more money to spend on a good rest home… 🆒 No, it doesn’t work like that. Money =/= Production. Your money has to purchase productivity. Hopefully you’ll save up, and hopefully you’ll make a friend who wants to be a patient advocate for you when you get old and feeble. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/94 "2009-04-08T04:20:00Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Are you not good at math or what? Three people produce a carbon footprint of three people, period. The child is a person. Apparently, you are not good at understanding why a carbon footprint is monitored. Maybe you should find out. > [@](#): > > And there is nothing dishonorable at all about producing children to continue to support the species. That is some pretty immature thinking there. Well, setting aside the fact that I didn’t say anything about “dishonorable”, producing children when you have good reason to believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket doesn’t seem like a good idea if nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/95 "2009-04-08T05:26:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You really need to pay attention. America is not in the process of demographic decline, though MOST developed nations are. Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. There is no such thing as an ‘allotment’ for children. And America has pretty low unemployment perennially. Right now we are in a pretty hard recession, but when we’re not we have pretty low unemployment. _Where_ in the world are you getting your ideas? It rather looks like you are quoting a Wiki article here - did you read the rest of it? You know, the part about “the U.S. growth rate is projected to surpass that of the world at large: the Census Bureau projects a population of 439 million in 2050, which is a 46% gain from 2007”? That replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman? For one thing, it is that low due to more and more women chosing to not have children. For another, 2.1 is over the replacement rate particularly when you realize that most women are not going to die before their children start having children. So, if each woman has 2.1 children and each of their children has 2.1 children, by the time the original woman dies at about 75 there are at least 6.3 people around to replace her, and even more if everyone has children young. _And_, this is spread over the whole country, some parts of which are essentially unihabitable and other parts should be left for growing food. It isn’t like those 439 million people are going to be evenly spread out. Whatever your definition of pretty low unemployment rate might be, the number I found for 2007 was an estimate of 4.6%. That Wiki article says that as of last month, there are 306 million people in the US, so 4.6% of that is over 14,000 people unemployed. Of course, the 306 million includes children who do not work, but it also includes teenagers who haven’t worked (and so don’t show up as unemployed), retirees who would like to get a job to suppliment their crappy Social Security and of course the bazillion illegals we have running around in this state alone. We aren’t going to run out of workers in the near future. Current unemployment appears to be 8.5%, so we apparently have 25,000 people not working more or less. But the country moves on with barely a ripple because we have quite a few people doing jobs that aren’t all that necessary, like handing coffee across a counter at Starbucks. You really don’t need to keep popping out more workers for us - really. > [@](#): > > Right, some of us find the health of the species and not its mere survival to be important. You certainly don’t show it. Did you bother to consider any genetic illnesses you may be passing on? Do you have any concern about the environment your child is growing up in? When you child is in her 30’s or 40’s and the US population is at that 439 million, will you at all concerned about whether she will be able to find a job, a decent place to live? Are you going to be able to provide her an education and a good start on life? Did you think about any of this or did you just decide “I want a child so I’m going to have one”? > [@](#): > > No. That’s simply true. Saying that it is a bad thing to have more than one child is utterly repulsive. Just because something is selfish or self-centered doesn’t make it wrong. OK, that one you are going to have to explain. Saying that contributing to overpopulation thru selfishness and self-centeredness, having children you expect others to help you raise, saying those are bad things is _repulsive_? This must be only because the subject is children - your kid. Do you think it repulsive when people say that Octomom shouldn’t have had all those kids? How about all those folks that have a bunch of kids just because they want their religion to “win”? > [@](#): > > I’d like to point out with all your going on the offensive to defend your way of life, you are actually the ONLY person in this thread attacking the way of life of others. Just me pushing back at all the entitlement. > [@](#): > > Right, overpopulation is essentially an emotional canard that some people simply accept as truth. It’s dogmatic and ignores a whole host of demographic criteria. Well, I think it is you that is ignoring quite a bit, but you go ahead and cite a few things that proves that overpopulation isn’t an issue for us, or won’t be for your kid. > [@](#): > > The world population isn’t going down. The rate of population growth is going down rapidly. IE, it ballooned in the 20th century but is tapering off now. The US Population growth is going up due to immigration, not breeding. If we didn’t have immigration our population would remain stable. I don’t care if the reason that there is so much less room and resources is because you had babies or people moved here from Chile, it still results in too many people. Which you decided to add to. No matter how you want to spin it, the world population has always gone up except for short periods of world war or widespread disease, and it will continue to go up as long as people think things like 2.1 children per woman is “replacement”. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/96 "2009-04-08T05:43:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Nope it doesn’t, it just means it’s more likely. My wife’s Grandmother is in a pretty nice home, and it makes all the difference that her daughter, my mother-in-law comes to see her regularly and make sure they are taking good care of her. The thing is, it’s not even that these old people get that way because no one likes them, sometimes they just outlive everyone they know. She quit making friends as she grew older? > [@](#): > > Heh, well right now we have a surplus of homes, overproduction in the 90s and 00s has resulted in hundreds of thousands of vacant properties nationwide. So I find it to be of little concern. Another indication of how little you know. As soon as the mortgage industry recovers, those houses will get filled. Particularly here, where we didn’t get hit near as hard. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t work like that. Money =/= Production. Your money has to purchase productivity. Hopefully you’ll save up, and hopefully you’ll make a friend who wants to be a patient advocate for you when you get old and feeble. You aren’t even making any sense. We have saved and one of the reasons I am sick of the entitlement attitude of so many parents is I am trying like the devil to hold onto our pensions and investments so we can retire without worries. With that, we will be able to live in our home unless/until we get infirm. As for using a friend as a patient advocate, I wouldn’t do that to a friend. If we should need one of those, that is what attorneys are for. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/97 "2009-04-08T07:07:50Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Which, for some bizarre reason, those who want to have children choose to ignore. No one needs to have more than one or two children these days, because no one needs to have a bunch of workers running around the house and farm. > (snip) > Having children in a severely overpopulated world is antisocial and selfish. Particularly in the cast of the millions who cannot afford to properly raise their children and depend on the government, charity, taxpayers, their church to just get by. I am deeply concerned about population issues myself, especially so since the United States is the one industrialized country that has high population growth, and at the same time the one least equipped to handle it. On the other hand, I certainly don’t think it’s selfish to have kids, or even a lot of them, because most people don’t these days. I don’t have kids and I’m not planning to, so go ahead, have two more on me! As long as the option of limiting family size is truly available, I don’t think the odd full house here and there is going to wreck us. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/98 "2009-04-08T07:38:09Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > I am deeply concerned about population issues myself, especially so since the United States is the one industrialized country that has high population growth, and at the same time the one least equipped to handle it. On the other hand, I certainly don’t think it’s selfish to have kids, or even a lot of them, because most people don’t these days. I don’t have kids and I’m not planning to, so go ahead, have two more on me! As long as the option of limiting family size is truly available, I don’t think the odd full house here and there is going to wreck us. How do you figure the US would have a problem accomodating its population growth? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/99 "2009-04-08T07:39:10Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Apparently, you are not good at understanding why a carbon footprint is monitored. Maybe you should find out. Maybe you don’t understand the concept of ‘per capita’, maybe you should find out. > [@](#): > > Well, setting aside the fact that I didn’t say anything about “dishonorable”, producing children when you have good reason to believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket doesn’t seem like a good idea if nothing else. I dont believe that there is a good reason to believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2009, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760/100 "2009-04-08T08:00:10Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > _Where_ in the world are you getting your ideas? It rather looks like you are quoting a Wiki article here - did you read the rest of it? You know, the part about “the U.S. growth rate is projected to surpass that of the world at large: the Census Bureau projects a population of 439 million in 2050, which is a 46% gain from 2007”? > **[Spotlighting The World Factbook as We Bid a Fond Farewell - CIA](https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/spotlighting-the-world-factbook-as-we-bid-a-fond-farewell/)** > [@](#): > > Urbanization: > Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order > urban population: 82% of total population (2008) > rate of urbanization: 1.3% annual rate of change (2005-2010) > Sex ratio: > Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order > at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female > under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female > 15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female > 65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female > total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2009 est.) > Infant mortality rate: > Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world > total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births > male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births > female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.) > Life expectancy at birth: > Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world > total population: 78.11 years > male: 75.65 years > female: 80.69 years (2009 est.) > Total fertility rate: > Definition Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order Comparison to the rest of the world > 2.05 children born/woman (2009 est.) So you’re right I was a little on the high side when I said 2.1. You’re making a great argument for anti-immigration though! > [@](#): > > That replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman? For one thing, it is that low due to more and more women chosing to not have children. For another, 2.1 is over the replacement rate particularly when you realize that most women are not going to die before their children start having children. So, if each woman has 2.1 children and each of their children has 2.1 children, by the time the original woman dies at about 75 there are at least 6.3 people around to replace her, and even more if everyone has children young. Replacement rate has nothing to do with the number of women. You clearly do not understand the concept. 2.1 is replacement rate regardless of whether 25% of women are having 8 kids while 75% are having none. 2.1 is generally accepted as replacement rate. So if you want to argue with accepted standards that’s fine, I am not equipped to argue for or against the accepted standard. > [@](#): > > _And_, this is spread over the whole country, some parts of which are essentially unihabitable and other parts should be left for growing food. It isn’t like those 439 million people are going to be evenly spread out. No, the vast majority of them live in urban agglomerations and exurbs and whole cities these days are being overtaken by nature in certain parts of the country, like the midwest, where we grow most of our food. Also, urban gardening has become quite popular these days. > [@](#): > > Whatever your definition of pretty low unemployment rate might be, the number I found for 2007 was an estimate of 4.6%. That Wiki article says that as of last month, there are 306 million people in the US, so 4.6% of that is over 14,000 people unemployed. Of course, the 306 million includes children who do not work, but it also includes teenagers who haven’t worked (and so don’t show up as unemployed), retirees who would like to get a job to suppliment their crappy Social Security and of course the bazillion illegals we have running around in this state alone. We aren’t going to run out of workers in the near future. This argument is not even wrong. People die, they are replaced by people who are born. That you do not grok this concept is very…umm…strange. > [@](#): > > Current unemployment appears to be 8.5%, so we apparently have 25,000 people not working more or less. But the country moves on with barely a ripple because we have quite a few people doing jobs that aren’t all that necessary, like handing coffee across a counter at Starbucks. You really don’t need to keep popping out more workers for us - really. It ‘appears’ to be 8.5% based on what? You should be adding three zeroes to your numbers btw. Jobs at Starbucks are not necessary huh? So the value of the lives of the children who serve as barristas is pretty much nil? They probably shouldn’t have been born then right? > [@](#): > > You certainly don’t show it. Did you bother to consider any genetic illnesses you may be passing on? Do you have any concern about the environment your child is growing up in? When you child is in her 30’s or 40’s and the US population is at that 439 million, will you at all concerned about whether she will be able to find a job, a decent place to live? Are you going to be able to provide her an education and a good start on life? Did you think about any of this or did you just decide “I want a child so I’m going to have one”? Yes I do think about genetic illnesses I might pass on, I have one that I am going to get tested to see if I might have passed the marker on. I know personally, as in have slept in his home, the man who identified the marker. I certainly have a concern about the environment my child grows up in. So you are saying since the US population growth is actually slightly below replacement rate we should enact very tough immigration reforms to ensure that the population doesn’t grow to the projections of the census? Yes, I will be able to provide her a good education. I and my wife are both quite intelligent as is our daughter and we have a very strong social network that will allow us to provide much for our daughter. > [@](#): > > OK, that one you are going to have to explain. Saying that contributing to overpopulation thru selfishness and self-centeredness, having children you expect others to help you raise, saying those are bad things is _repulsive_? This must be only because the subject is children - your kid. Do you think it repulsive when people say that Octomom shouldn’t have had all those kids? How about all those folks that have a bunch of kids just because they want their religion to “win”? I do not agree that the world is overpopulated. You just argue this as if it’s axiomatic and an accepted assumption. I generally find it distasteful when people say that human beings shouldn’t have been born, even the children of Octomom. I mean it’s a bit odd that she was given fertility treatment when she couldn’t support herself let alone a family, but if that were not the case it wouldn’t really bother me. All those people who have children because they want their religion to ‘win’ still are not pushing the US birthrate above replacement rate. > [@](#): > > Just me pushing back at all the entitlement. Uhh..yeah…right. > [@](#): > > Well, I think it is you that is ignoring quite a bit, but you go ahead and cite a few things that proves that overpopulation isn’t an issue for us, or won’t be for your kid. I fully support right to die initiatives for those who wish to take it upon themselves to have the courage of their convictions. > [@](#): > > I don’t care if the reason that there is so much less room and resources is because you had babies or people moved here from Chile, it still results in too many people. Which you decided to add to. No matter how you want to spin it, the world population has always gone up except for short periods of world war or widespread disease, and it will continue to go up as long as people think things like 2.1 children per woman is “replacement”. Ok, well then you’ve made a great argument against immigration. The world has ‘always’ and yet inexplicably during the period of greatest plenty in the lands of greatest plenty during the period of greatest peace in those times, the birthrate has declined and has declined across the board in almost the entire world. It just has, without us doing anything really, without us hating other people for giving birth to more people, population growth has slowed dramatically. In many countries from Germany, to Russia, to Japan, to Iran demographic decline is a serious issue that threatens the stability of their economies, so much so that many of these nations have started offering breeding incentives. Imagine that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-population-growth-and-society/491760.md?page=6)