smac97 Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 From the New York Times: Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom. Some excerpts: Quote All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore. Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea can’t find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks. My daughter spent a year as an exchange student in Italy. People were astounded when they found out she came from a family with six children. Quote Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Though some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time. A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women. But the census announcements this month from China and the United States, which showed the slowest rates of population growth in decades for both countries, also point to hard-to-fathom adjustments. I wonder what this shift will mean for the Church. Quote The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. It may also require a reconceptualization of family and nation. Imagine entire regions where everyone is 70 or older. Imagine governments laying out huge bonuses for immigrants and mothers with lots of children. Imagine a gig economy filled with grandparents and Super Bowl ads promoting procreation. “A paradigm shift is necessary,” said Frank Swiaczny, a German demographer who was the chief of population trends and analysis for the United Nations until last year. “Countries need to learn to live with and adapt to decline.” Here the article puts the value of people in almost purely economic terms. I think the impact of radically fewer children will be dire in other ways as well. Technology has vastly improved healthcare, food production, and otherwise made having children easier. Yet here we are, having radically fewer children. Quite a few reasons for this. Quote The ramifications and responses have already begun to appear, especially in East Asia and Europe. From Hungary to China, from Sweden to Japan, governments are struggling to balance the demands of a swelling older cohort with the needs of young people whose most intimate decisions about childbearing are being shaped by factors both positive (more work opportunities for women) and negative (persistent gender inequality and high living costs). If "gender inequality" has been "persistent," then how is it a factor in decreasing fertility? Quote The 20th century presented a very different challenge. The global population saw its greatest increase in known history, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000, as life spans lengthened and infant mortality declined. In some countries — representing about a third of the world’s people — those growth dynamics are still in play. By the end of the century, Nigeria could surpass China in population; across sub-Saharan Africa, families are still having four or five children. But nearly everywhere else, the era of high fertility is ending. As women have gained more access to education and contraception, and as the anxieties associated with having children continue to intensify, more parents are delaying pregnancy and fewer babies are being born. Even in countries long associated with rapid growth, such as India and Mexico, birthrates are falling toward, or are already below, the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family. Boy, it will be interesting to see how things are situated thirty years from now. Quote The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff. “It becomes a cyclical mechanism,” said Stuart Gietel Basten, an expert on Asian demographics and a professor of social science and public policy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “It’s demographic momentum.” Some countries, like the United States, Australia and Canada, where birthrates hover between 1.5 and 2, have blunted the impact with immigrants. But in Eastern Europe, migration out of the region has compounded depopulation, and in large parts of Asia, the “demographic time bomb” that first became a subject of debate a few decades ago has finally gone off. South Korea’s fertility rate dropped to a record low of 0.92 in 2019 — less than one child per woman, the lowest rate in the developed world. Every month for the past 59 months, the total number of babies born in the country has dropped to a record depth. Wow. Quote That declining birthrate, coupled with a rapid industrialization that has pushed people from rural towns to big cities, has created what can feel like a two-tiered society. While major metropolises like Seoul continue to grow, putting intense pressure on infrastructure and housing, in regional towns it’s easy to find schools shut and abandoned, their playgrounds overgrown with weeds, because there are not enough children. "There are not enough children." Sad words, these. Quote Expectant mothers in many areas can no longer find obstetricians or postnatal care centers. Universities below the elite level, especially outside Seoul, find it increasingly hard to fill their ranks — the number of 18-year-olds in South Korea has fallen from about 900,000 in 1992 to 500,000 today. To attract students, some schools have offered scholarships and even iPhones. To goose the birthrate, the government has handed out baby bonuses. It increased child allowances and medical subsidies for fertility treatments and pregnancy. Health officials have showered newborns with gifts of beef, baby clothes and toys. The government is also building kindergartens and day care centers by the hundreds. In Seoul, every bus and subway car has pink seats reserved for pregnant women. But this month, Deputy Prime Minister Hong Nam-ki admitted that the government — which has spent more than $178 billion over the past 15 years encouraging women to have more babies — was not making enough progress. In many families, the shift feels cultural and permanent. Encouraging people to have children is, I think, largely beyond the purview of the government. Social/cultural norms and expectations can only be coaxed so far via governmental interventionism. Quote “My grandparents had six children, and my parents five, because their generations believed in having multiple children,” said Kim Mi-kyung, 38, a stay-at-home parent. “I have only one child. To my and younger generations, all things considered, it just doesn’t pay to have many children.” Thousands of miles away, in Italy, the sentiment is similar, with a different backdrop. In Capracotta, a small town in southern Italy, a sign in red letters on an 18th-century stone building looking on to the Apennine Mountains reads “Home of School Kindergarten” — but today, the building is a nursing home. Residents eat their evening broth on waxed tablecloths in the old theater room. “There were so many families, so many children,” said Concetta D’Andrea, 93, who was a student and a teacher at the school and is now a resident of the nursing home. “Now there is no one.” The population in Capracotta has dramatically aged and contracted — from about 5,000 people to 800. The town’s carpentry shops have shut down. The organizers of a soccer tournament struggled to form even one team. About a half-hour away, in the town of Agnone, the maternity ward closed a decade ago because it had fewer than 500 births a year, the national minimum to stay open. This year, six babies were born in Agnone. “Once you could hear the babies in the nursery cry, and it was like music,” said Enrica Sciullo, a nurse who used to help with births there and now mostly takes care of older patients. “Now there is silence and a feeling of emptiness.” Wow. Quote Birth projections often shift based on how governments and families respond, but according to projections by an international team of scientists published last year in The Lancet, 183 countries and territories — out of 195 — will have fertility rates below replacement level by 2100. My (prospective) grandchildren will likely live to see such things. Quote Their model shows an especially sharp decline for China, with its population expected to fall from 1.41 billion now to about 730 million in 2100. If that happens, the population pyramid would essentially flip. Instead of a base of young workers supporting a narrower band of retirees, China would have as many 85-year-olds as 18-year-olds. China’s rust belt, in the northeast, saw its population drop by 1.2 percent in the past decade, according to census figures released on Tuesday. In 2016, Heilongjiang Province became the first in the country to have its pension system run out of money. In Hegang, a “ghost city” in the province that has lost almost 10 percent of its population since 2010, homes cost so little that people compare them to cabbage. I was just speaking with a friend who is predicting that 3D-printed housing will, in the very near future, radically alter the housing markets in the United States. Here in Utah there is a shortage of affordable housing, and the same can be said for other locations as well. But 3D-printed housing looks like it may be a "disruptive technology" that could bring housing prices down quite a bit. But then, a severe imbalance between supply and demand could bring down prices too. Imagine that housing becomes substantially more affordable than it is now, both because 3D-printing has brought hard costs down and because population decline reduces the demand for housing overall. This is just one of a thousand ramifications we could see in the next few decades stemming from population decline (and technology). Quote Many countries are beginning to accept the need to adapt, not just resist. South Korea is pushing for universities to merge. In Japan, where adult diapers now outsell ones for babies, municipalities have been consolidated as towns age and shrink. In Sweden, some cities have shifted resources from schools to elder care. And almost everywhere, older people are being asked to keep working. Germany, which previously raised its retirement age to 67, is now considering a bump to 69. Going further than many other nations, Germany has also worked through a program of urban contraction: Demolitions have removed around 330,000 units from the housing stock since 2002. And if the goal is revival, a few green shoots can be found. After expanding access to affordable child care and paid parental leave, Germany’s fertility rate recently increased to 1.54, up from 1.3 in 2006. Leipzig, which once was shrinking, is now growing again after reducing its housing stock and making itself more attractive with its smaller scale. “Growth is a challenge, as is decline,” said Mr. Swiaczny, who is now a senior research fellow at the Federal Institute for Population Research in Germany. Demographers warn against seeing population decline as simply a cause for alarm. Many women are having fewer children because that’s what they want. Smaller populations could lead to higher wages, more equal societies, lower carbon emissions and a higher quality of life for the smaller numbers of children who are born. But, said Professor Gietel Basten, quoting Casanova: “There is no such thing as destiny. We ourselves shape our lives.” I wonder if the "green shoots" comment can be justified. See here: Quote The challenges ahead are still a cul-de-sac — no country with a serious slowdown in population growth has managed to increase its fertility rate much beyond the minor uptick that Germany accomplished. There is little sign of wage growth in shrinking countries, and there is no guarantee that a smaller population means less stress on the environment. So nobody has yet been able to recover from this massive demographic spiral down. Quote Surveys in many countries show that young people would like to be having more children, but face too many obstacles. Anna Parolini tells a common story. She left her small hometown in northern Italy to find better job opportunities. Now 37, she lives with her boyfriend in Milan and has put her desire to have children on hold. She is afraid her salary of less than 2,000 euros a month would not be enough for a family, and her parents still live where she grew up. “I don’t have anyone here who could help me,” she said. “Thinking of having a child now would make me gasp.” I'd like to see these surveys. So, thoughts? What do you think this will mean for the world in the next 30-80 years (second half of this century)? And more particularly, what do you think this means for the Church? Thanks, -Smac 1
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 Hmm...... Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia Will say, fewer people does sound nice. The world as well as myself could do with more reforestation and fewer people running around. 2
3DOP Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 Every third Friday is snooker night (a kind of pocket billiards but harder) in the big shop/snooker table room of my son-in-law. No girls allowed (and none want to be there). I enjoy that I seem to be accepted and am allowed to hang out with the young men that are friends with my son-in-law. My daughter and son-in-law married rather late, but number six is on the way. One of the others guys there has five or six I know. I got to talking to another one of them this recent Friday night about how three of my daughters or daughters-in-law have more grandbabies on the way. This prompted him to announce..."Oh yeah, number ten is on the way"...He was roundly greeted with hearty congratulations. I don't mean anything by sharing this except to say that some communities still value children and large families. 3
Calm Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: If "gender inequality" has been "persistent," then how is it a factor in decreasing fertility? Couple it with other variables, such as fewer marriages and possible divorce so that women are looking at the possibility of raising families on their own on less money, I can see it decreasing over all. 3
3DOP Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 12 minutes ago, poptart said: Hmm...... Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia Will say, fewer people does sound nice. The world as well as myself could do with more reforestation and fewer people running around. Oh poptart...you poor guy...Trees? I love trees too. We can have both! A soul in the state of grace is greater and more glorious than all of God's trees and indeed, all inanimate creation put together. God love you pt...what I just stated is the justified and good reason for why the people of God are commanded to multiply and replenish...etc. 1
smac97 Posted May 23, 2021 Author Posted May 23, 2021 15 minutes ago, poptart said: Hmm...... Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia Will say, fewer people does sound nice. The world as well as myself could do with more reforestation Aren't we already heading that way? See here: Quote The Myth of Deforestation Yearly, net deforestation is fast approaching zero and according to current trends, within the next couple of decades, net afforestation will be the norm. Monday, May 28, 2018 Recently on the BBC, Deborah Tabart from the Australian Koala Foundation noted that “85 percent of the world’s forests are now gone.” Luckily this statement is incorrect. Moreover, due to afforestation in the developed world, net deforestation has almost ceased. I’m sure that Tabart had nothing but good intentions in raising environmental concerns, but far-fetched claims about the current state of the world’s forests do not help anyone. The record needs setting straight. Getting the Facts Straight After searching for evidence to support Tabart’s claim, the closest source I could find is an article from GreenActionNews, which claims that 80 percent of the earth’s forests have been destroyed. The problem with that claim is that according to the United Nations there are 4 billion hectares of forest remaining worldwide. To put that in perspective, the entire world has 14.8 billion hectares of land. For 80 percent of the forest area to have already been destroyed and for 4 billion hectares to remain, 135 percent of the planet’s surface must have once been covered in forests. GreenActionNews’ claim not only implies that 5.2 billion hectares of deforestation occurred at sea, but that every bit of land on earth was once forested. Ancient deserts, swamps, tundra and grasslands make a mockery of that claim. ... Anyhow, slightly more than 31 percent of the world is covered in forest. The world does continue to lose forest area, but consider the rate and location of this loss. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the annual rate of deforestation has more than halved since the 1990s. Between 2010 and 2015, the world has gained 4.3 million hectares of forest per year, while losing 7.6 million hectares of forest per year. That accounts for a net decrease of 0.08 percent of forest area each year. ... Economic Development and Afforestation The reason why most people labor under a misapprehension about the state of the world’s forests is that news stories often ignore afforestation. In about half of the world, there is net reforestation and, as Matt Ridley puts it, this isn’t happening despite economic development, but because of it. The world’s richest regions, such as North America and Europe, are not only increasing their forest area. They have more forests than they did prior to industrialization. The United Kingdom, for example, has more than tripled its forest area since 1919. The UK will soon reach forest levels equal to those registered in the Domesday Book, almost a thousand years ago. It is not just rich nations that are experiencing net reforestation. The “Environmental Kuznets curve” is an economic notion that suggests that economic development initially leads to environmental deterioration, but after a period of economic growth that degradation begins to reverse. Once nations hit, what Ridley dubs the “forest transition,” or approximately $4,500 GDP per capita, forest areas begin to increase. China, Russia, India, Vietnam and Bangladesh are just some of the nations that have hit this forest transition phase and are experiencing net afforestation. Poor people can’t afford to care about the environment very much, because other priorities – such as survival – are more important. If that means that a rare animal must be killed and eaten, so be it. “The environment is a luxury good,” says Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith Institute, “it’s something we spend more of our income upon, as incomes rise.” A recent study from the University of Helsinki highlights that between 1990 and 2015, annual forest area grew in high and mid-income nations by 1.31 percent and 0.5 percent respectively while decreasing by 0.72 percent in 22 low-income countries. The Kuznets curve not only applies to forest area, but also biodiversity. Ridley gives the example of three apex predators: wolves that live in developed countries of Europe and North America, tigers who mainly inhabit mid-income India, Russia and Bangladesh, and lions, which live in poor Sub-Saharan Africa. Following the Kuznets curve, wolf numbers are rapidly increasing, tiger numbers have been steady for the last 20 years (and have just began to increase), while lion numbers continue to fall. To encourage reforestation and environmental protection, the answer is a simple one – adopt economic policies that encourage rapid development and urbanization. As people grow rich and move to the cities, more money becomes available for environmental protection and more land can be returned to nature. Seems like we have the ability to have people and care for the environment. 15 minutes ago, poptart said: and fewer people running around. I'm curious about this. Would you characterize your position as being essentially misanthropic? Thanks, -Smac
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, 3DOP said: Oh poptart...you poor guy...Trees? I love trees too. We can have both! A soul in the state of grace is greater and more glorious than all of God's trees and indeed, all inanimate creation put together. God love you pt...what I just stated is the justified and good reason for why the people of God are commanded to multiply and replenish...etc. Lol I'm a cultural Christian and interpret things my own way. I disagree, considering the condition of a lot of humanity I'd value trees and our ecosystem far more than a lot of the people running around nowadays. Besides, there were Christian kings back in the day who thought the same like William the conqueror. My personal favorite saint, Hubertus was a huge fan of ecology and the hunt, perfect balance. Also I don't ascribe to the take on children a lot of Catholics here take, from what i;ve seen of the more privilieged they're pro life when it suits them yet care nothing for the poor. I know you're not a pope Francis fan like a lot of privileged people here aren't but i'm with him, US Catholics need to be more about the poor, at least as much as they are about the pro life movement. Edited May 23, 2021 by poptart
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Aren't we already heading that way? See here: Seems like we have the ability to have people and care for the environment. I'm curious about this. Would you characterize your position as being essentially misanthropic? Thanks, -Smac I dunno, seen maps of just how much of the US woodland is gone? It makes me sick everytime I see some new subdivision, full of overpriced cookie cutter gingerbread houses pop up. I could do with more woodland and a more eco friendly populace that lived in harmony with the natural world personally. Just how sustainable is what we have? Dunno, misanthrope sounds like a lot of work. 4
smac97 Posted May 23, 2021 Author Posted May 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, poptart said: I dunno, seen maps of just how much of the US woodland is gone? It makes me sick everytime I see some new subdivision, full of overpriced cookie cutter gingerbread houses pop up. For myself, I would like to see a shift to cultivated meat, since the amount of land, water, resources, etc. to support the meat industry is staggering. As for new subdivisions, I think they are, in the main, wonderful. As Dennis Miller put it: "A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.” I agree that housing prices in some areas are onerous. We can fix that. We can also address deforestation and environmental issues. We don't need to descend into misanthropy to do these things. Thanks, -Smac
strappinglad Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 If I live until 2100, I hope there are still MAC trucks driving around that I can step in front of. 🤮 Might depopulation be part of the Abomination of Desolation prophecy ?
AtlanticMike Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: For myself, I would like to see a shift to cultivated meat, since the amount of land, water, resources, etc. to support the meat industry is staggering Cultivated meat takes a lot of electricity to produce including air conditiined buildings to grow the meat. I hope I don't sound too much like a redneck, but why don't people help by producing meat for their own family? Is it because it takes time away from other daily activities? Most family's have enough land or space to produce 70 to 100 percent of all the meat a family needs.
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 (edited) 43 minutes ago, smac97 said: For myself, I would like to see a shift to cultivated meat, since the amount of land, water, resources, etc. to support the meat industry is staggering. As for new subdivisions, I think they are, in the main, wonderful. As Dennis Miller put it: "A developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.” I agree that housing prices in some areas are onerous. We can fix that. We can also address deforestation and environmental issues. We don't need to descend into misanthropy to do these things. Thanks, -Smac Depends on the development, I'd rather see something with subdivisions that live in harmony with whatever ecosystem they're in vs what we're seeing nowadays. I'd still like to see fewer people, as it is everyone wants the 1950s boomer lifestyle at the expense of everything else, that's not sustainable. People are still a part of nature, we mess things up we're done unless we can somehow evolve and live like bacteria at thermal vents do. Maybe if people loved nature more, abandoned technology a bit and lived more charitably I'd back off, so far I'm not seeing that. Edited May 23, 2021 by poptart 4
Chum Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 57 minutes ago, poptart said: how much of the US woodland is gone? It makes me sick everytime I see some new subdivision, full of overpriced cookie cutter gingerbread houses pop up. The other side of that coin is our current housing shortage.
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, Chum said: The other side of that coin is our current housing shortage. Big surprise why we're seeing a baby bust. The coming COVID-19 baby bust is here (brookings.edu) 1
mgy401 Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 I think that “retirement” as we know it is likely to end—government won’t be able to sustain pensions with an ever-shrinking tax base; and stock-market-based funds will crash in value as fewer investors chase the same number of outstanding shares of companies with ever-shrinking client bases. I rather wonder whether, as commerce becomes a less-reliable means of getting rich, individuals and nations will turn to the old standbies of conquest, subjugation, and enslavement. Wasn’t a crash in birthrate and net population figures, a hallmark of the fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing couple of centuries? 2
LoudmouthMormon Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 1 hour ago, poptart said: Hmm...... Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia I can't fathom people's fascination with the Georgia guidestones. When you point out it's full of eugenics and totalitarianism, it's like a surprise to them.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 49 minutes ago, strappinglad said: If I live until 2100, I hope there are still MAC trucks driving around that I can step in front of. 🤮 Might depopulation be part of the Abomination of Desolation prophecy ? Hmmm. I dunno, but it is an interesting idea.
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: I can't fathom people's fascination with the Georgia guidestones. When you point out it's full of eugenics and totalitarianism, it's like a surprise to them. Oh I know. Here's something else, if you bring up what the USA used to do back when it's even worse. I of course don't, people don't like hearing about these things. Eugenic Sterilizations in INDIANA (uvm.edu) Eugenics - HISTORY IHB: 1907 Indiana Eugenics Law Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia Will be interesting to see what the USA will do if they start running out of funds for medicare. As it is our healthcare system spends so much on prolonging life at the expense of quality of life. 2
poptart Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 15 minutes ago, mgy401 said: I think that “retirement” as we know it is likely to end—government won’t be able to sustain pensions with an ever-shrinking tax base; and stock-market-based funds will crash in value as fewer investors chase the same number of outstanding shares of companies with ever-shrinking client bases. I rather wonder whether, as commerce becomes a less-reliable means of getting rich, individuals and nations will turn to the old standbies of conquest, subjugation, and enslavement. Wasn’t a crash in birthrate and net population figures, a hallmark of the fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing couple of centuries? It wasn't so much the crash in birth rates it was the crash in birthrates of Romans with money and them moving north to found the city states. Rome was full of impoverished slaves. Food for thought, the colosseum could seat what, 40, 50k? Meanwhile there were millions of people living in shanty towns in Rome, the bread and circuses never reached them. These people were rightfully angry, bitter and well, eventually Rome could not afford to keep them in check as well as keep the empire afloat. Wouldn't surprise me, thing is warfare is a lot more accessible to people now. You no longer have to train day in and day out, with a 3d printer you can cause a ton of chaos. Nicolas Maduro ‘survived assassination attempt involving exploding drones’ - YouTube Horror Short Film “Slaughterbots” | ALTER - YouTube 1
teddyaware Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 4 hours ago, 3DOP said: Every third Friday is snooker night (a kind of pocket billiards but harder) in the big shop/snooker table room of my son-in-law. No girls allowed (and none want to be there). I enjoy that I seem to be accepted and am allowed to hang out with the young men that are friends with my son-in-law. My daughter and son-in-law married rather late, but number six is on the way. One of the others guys there has five or six I know. I got to talking to another one of them this recent Friday night about how three of my daughters or daughters-in-law have more grandbabies on the way. This prompted him to announce..."Oh yeah, number ten is on the way"...He was roundly greeted with hearty congratulations. I don't mean anything by sharing this except to say that some communities still value children and large families. Are these people Amish? 1
Meadowchik Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 (edited) The planet's capacity to support human life is finite, so we must know that we cannot rely on population, just like we cannot rely on debt. Edited May 23, 2021 by Meadowchik 3
3DOP Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 59 minutes ago, teddyaware said: Are these people Amish? teddyaware, hi. No. 3DOP
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted May 23, 2021 Popular Post Posted May 23, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, smac97 said: ...................... Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom..................... My daughter spent a year as an exchange student in Italy. People were astounded when they found out she came from a family with six children. I wonder what this shift will mean for the Church. ............... And more particularly, what do you think this means for the Church? Orthodox Jews and TR Mormons seem to buck the trend. We might want to ask why. There are other modern groups who do as well. Why? What is it about such groups that favors higher fertility? Many years ago, I met a woman in Independence, Missouri. In casual conversation, it came out that she thought having a baby was the most satisfying thing she had ever done. Marriage, her husband, etc., were not nearly as meaningful. When I met her, she pointed out that her daughter was now in her early twenties and that they were best friends. I can also recall being in the early morning market in Jerusalem many years ago, seeing two men, obviously father and son -- they looked so much alike, except that one was so much younger. They could have been Abraham and Isaac. There was something in those instances about family, the real meaning of family, which no longer exists for us. Quote Here the article puts the value of people in almost purely economic terms. I think the impact of radically fewer children will be dire in other ways as well. Technology has vastly improved healthcare, food production, and otherwise made having children easier. Yet here we are, having radically fewer children. Quite a few reasons for this. And yet, the diminution of the extended family means that grandma will not be there to care for junior while mama is at work. The extended family has always been key to successful large families. Quote If "gender inequality" has been "persistent," then how is it a factor in decreasing fertility? In Sweden, where the greatest effort on the planet has been exerted to gain equality qua equity (equal outcomes), women oddly favor traditional roles or traditional jobs (teaching, nursing, caregiving, etc.). What is it the social engineers are missing? Is nurture everything for them, and nature nothing? Then there is ideology: Has China brought true happiness to its people? Do people thrive in dictatorships in which everyone knows the rules and expectations are fulfilled? Are the people of Hong Kong likely to have more or less children now that they are so harshly repressed? How will Taiwan fare when the ChiCom govt takes the island by force? Will people want to have children? Note that democracy has not thrived in Russia or Byelorussia. Women will now once again be treated like animals in Afghanistan. Quote ................................... Encouraging people to have children is, I think, largely beyond the purview of the government. Social/cultural norms and expectations can only be coaxed so far via governmental interventionism. ...................So nobody has yet been able to recover from this massive demographic spiral down. Perhaps in the short term, but we might want to take a longer historical purview. Demography has always been oscillatory, like history itself, even if the human race has vastly increased over time. Is the current demographic down spiral only temporary? Quote ......................... So, thoughts? What do you think this will mean for the world in the next 30-80 years (second half of this century)?............................ There is great potential for catastrophes in this century. A low fertility rate may be the least of our problems. Then there is the Second Coming of the Lord: What are the implications of that event, and the following Millennium? We need to abandon linear projections. The future will not go as we imagine it. Edited May 23, 2021 by Robert F. Smith 6
Robert F. Smith Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said: Cultivated meat takes a lot of electricity to produce including air conditiined buildings to grow the meat. I hope I don't sound too much like a redneck, but why don't people help by producing meat for their own family? Is it because it takes time away from other daily activities? Most family's have enough land or space to produce 70 to 100 percent of all the meat a family needs. Electricity generation by fusion power is just around the corner, so we will be able to afford that. 1
The Nehor Posted May 23, 2021 Posted May 23, 2021 I suspect that this change is more culture catching up with economic reality. Pre-depression having more children was a path to prosperity for farming families. More children meant more workers. Then we started passing laws in the depression to curtail child labor (public education started to become the norm for children) to attempt to give more value to adult workers due to relative scarcity. It worked to an extent. Then the Second World War hit and afterwards the US was on top of the world with a massive economic advantage competing in an economy where virtually every other industrialized was depopulated and/or devastated due to war damage. So large families were not an economic burden. That shifted and the push to need two incomes to survive made children a liability (child care is not cheap). If we want birth rates to rise it needs to be incentivized. I admit that foisting the care of the elderly on a perpetually increasing population seems unwise. We should be seeking stability instead of continuous growth in economics and population. It is a disaster when the economy grows but doesn’t grow enough. We are breaking ourselves with a system that needs a serious rethink. 3
Recommended Posts