DD & CFLarsen's Birth rate thread

[Hawk one]

Interesting. Now, kindly provide some sound evidence for your views. Thanks.

Most of it is stuff I was taught in grade school. I was taught that in the past, the infant mortality rate was much higher in Norway than it is today. I was taught that as modern medicine started to turn into a real thing, less kids would die. And finally, I was taught that people used to have a lot more kids per family before than today.

And I can put two and two together.

However, here are some helpful stats (Norwegian only, I'm afraid:
http://web.hist.uib.no/digitalskolen/fellesfiler/nohist.htm

As you can see in the statistics on the middle of the page, the population in Norway really started to grow from 1815 and onwards, and this is the time period when medicine and the concept of hygiene is gradually starting to catch on, reducing amongst other things the infant mortality significantly. As a result, Norway's population did in fact grow so fast we sent a whole lot over to the USA, and would still have a population increasing too much for its own good.

So, we keep growing, because we still give birth to a lot of kids. But then we finally get fewer kids per family, from the 60s/70s and onwards. At this point, everything is still dandy, because the previous generation is still in their prime age.

But now we finally get to our generation. And we are at the verge of the last generation of big families turning old, which means that as a natural result, more people are going to die per birth. Take a look at this hypothetical math here, simplified to give an example:

Generation A is having 1 000 people, and gives birth to 1500 kids (that live to reproduce), generation B. Total population, 2500.
Generation B gives birth to 2250 kids, generation C. Generation A still lives. Total population, 4750.
Generation C then only gives birth to 2250 kids, generation D. Generation A dies. Total population, 6500.
Generation D gives birth to 2250 kids, generation E. Generation B dies, total population 7250.
And generation E keeps giving birth to 2250 kids, generation F. Generation C dies. Population stable at 7250.

And that's pretty much what's been happening in the West, with only a minor difference that we have so many old and middle-aged to old people right now that it's tipping the scale ever so slightly, and will be until the last generation of big families are gone. -THAT- is the transition period I'm talking about.

But since that's outweighed by working immigration, there's still a total growth anyway, as per the statistics previously in this thread showed. And once we're past that stage with all those old people passing away, then things will be realistically expected to stabilise.

And as for the human race as a whole, there really isn't nothing to worry about as long as we don't pull out all our nuclear weapons. Because, well, there's never, ever been so many of us as it is right now. You could take away 90% of the population, and we'd still be better off than we were just a few centuries back; and with more means to survive as well than ever before.

 

[Hawk one]

Everyone involved in predicting the future population knows about the baby boomers. The Baby Boomers are of no import to the declining population of developed countries. None whatsoever.

Adn where is your evidence that the baby booming generation has no importance whatsoever on the population rate as a whole?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So let me rephrase that, when will mankind be extinct? I mean, how can you tell me that I'm in a rush when you don't know when it will happen?

I don't know when mankind will be extinct. I said so already.

However, the reason we are in rush is that we are from developed nations and we are dying out.

Let's just say that the infant mortality rate is irrelevant for a population growth estimation, it doesn't matter. You won't give in, and nor will I, and I'm actually more curious as to when mankind will be extinct.

We could be extinct in a 100 years. Obviously I don't think so.

But just remember, please, that we are always just 100 years from extinction. No matter how many people we are on the planet.

 

[Tailgater]

All predicters of future populations.

So they would therefore, according to your 19th century logic, be more aware of them?

Sorry, I don't understand.

You say things are irrelevant because predicters say so without saying why or who they are.

I don't know why they wouldn't be aware, because I have know idea who they are or what they are aware of.

You have information outside what has been presented that you are not sharing to claim these predicters would dismiss something.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Most of it is stuff I was taught in grade school. I was taught that in the past, the infant mortality rate was much higher in Norway than it is today. I was taught that as modern medicine started to turn into a real thing, less kids would die. And finally, I was taught that people used to have a lot more kids per family before than today.

And I can put two and two together.

However, here are some helpful stats (Norwegian only, I'm afraid:
http://web.hist.uib.no/digitalskolen/fellesfiler/nohist.htm

As you can see in the statistics on the middle of the page, the population in Norway really started to grow from 1815 and onwards, and this is the time period when medicine and the concept of hygiene is gradually starting to catch on, reducing amongst other things the infant mortality significantly. As a result, Norway's population did in fact grow so fast we sent a whole lot over to the USA, and would still have a population increasing too much for its own good.

So, we keep growing, because we still give birth to a lot of kids. But then we finally get fewer kids per family, from the 60s/70s and onwards. At this point, everything is still dandy, because the previous generation is still in their prime age.

But now we finally get to our generation. And we are at the verge of the last generation of big families turning old, which means that as a natural result, more people are going to die per birth. Take a look at this hypothetical math here, simplified to give an example:

Generation A is having 1 000 people, and gives birth to 1500 kids (that live to reproduce), generation B. Total population, 2500.
Generation B gives birth to 2250 kids, generation C. Generation A still lives. Total population, 4750.
Generation C then only gives birth to 2250 kids, generation D. Generation A dies. Total population, 6500.
Generation D gives birth to 2250 kids, generation E. Generation B dies, total population 7250.
And generation E keeps giving birth to 2250 kids, generation F. Generation C dies. Population stable at 7250.

And that's pretty much what's been happening in the West, with only a minor difference that we have so many old and middle-aged to old people right now that it's tipping the scale ever so slightly, and will be until the last generation of big families are gone. -THAT- is the transition period I'm talking about.

But, my friend, that is not a transition period, coming up. That is the way it will be from now on! The birthrates have not changed. The deth rates have not changed.

But since that's outweighed by working immigration, there's still a total growth anyway, as per the statistics previously in this thread showed. And once we're past that stage with all those old people passing away, then things will be realistically expected to stabilise.

And as for the human race as a whole, there really isn't nothing to worry about as long as we don't pull out all our nuclear weapons. Because, well, there's never, ever been so many of us as it is right now. You could take away 90% of the population, and we'd still be better off than we were just a few centuries back; and with more means to survive as well than ever before.

Please see my remark in the post above. It makes no difference at all how many we currently are. We will still be just 100 years from extermination.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Adn where is your evidence that the baby booming generation has no importance whatsoever on the population rate as a whole?

It is obvious. I simply don't understand how you cannot see that.

 

[Tailgater]

Generation A is having 1 000 people, and gives birth to 1500 kids (that live to reproduce), generation B. Total population, 2500.
Generation B gives birth to 2250 kids, generation C. Generation A still lives. Total population, 4750.
Generation C then only gives birth to 2250 kids, generation D. Generation A dies. Total population, 6500.
Generation D gives birth to 2250 kids, generation E. Generation B dies, total population 7250.
And generation E keeps giving birth to 2250 kids, generation F. Generation C dies. Population stable at 7250.

Good example, you could even tweek that a little to show an overall population growth over time with a single dip in the actual population. Like waves rising and falling as the tide goes up.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Good example, you could even tweek that a little to show an overall population growth over time with a single dip in the actual population. Like waves rising and falling as the tide goes up.

The example is of no worth, I'm afraid. It just shows how a baby boomer generation temporarilly upsets the inevitable given the rest of the statistics.

 

[Tailgater]

But, my friend, that is not a transition period, coming up. That is the way it will be from now on! The birthrates have not changed. The deth rates have not changed.

Please see my remark in the post above. It makes no difference at all how many we currently are. We will still be just 100 years from extermination.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_world_population_1950-2050_and_graph.htm

 

[DanishDynamite]

http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_world_population_1950-2050_and_graph.htm

Wonderful link, Tailgater.

Wish it had some relevance to this thread.

 

[Hawk one]

It is obvious. I simply don't understand how you cannot see that.

Double standards, then, I see.

It's obvious to me that we aren't in any danger because I've studied basic history, and given you a link that gives you the short rundown on how it works. It's obvius to me that when one generation are having a smaller family than the previous one and then stabilise, then we'll have a period with more deaths per birth. And it's obvious to me that we're entering this transitional phase and are going to have some struggle for the next few decades, but that we'll cope, because humans are pretty good at dealing with problems overall. If we weren't, we wouldn't be so damn successful.

It's obvious to you that we are dying out because... Sorry, just you saying so won't cut it. Provide the evidence, please. Provide the evidence from named scientists that support your claim. Provide it, or be proven a hypocrite.

Also provide evidence for the claim "we are always just 100 years from extinction", because I've certainly never heard -that- before, and I'd like to find if this is true, or just something you made up in your head. Especially when you're telling me that a birthrate of about 1.0 kid per person in a near infant death-free society of several hundred millions of people, can wipe it out in just a hundred years. Or even a thousand years.

 

[Tailgater]

Wonderful link, Tailgater.

Wish it had some relevance to this thread.

Hehe cut and pasted wrong link, then comp locked up

 

[DanishDynamite]

Double standards, then, I see.

Really? Where?

It's obvious to me that we aren't in any danger because I've studied basic history, and given you a link that gives you the short rundown on how it works. It's obvius to me that when one generation are having a smaller family than the previous one and then stabilise, then we'll have a period with more deaths per birth. And it's obvious to me that we're entering this transitional phase and are going to have some struggle for the next few decades, but that we'll cope, because humans are pretty good at dealing with problems overall. If we weren't, we wouldn't be so damn successful.

Never seen such balloney in my life. Please, Hawk One, try and deal with reality for a while. Thanks.

The only thing of importance, regarding this question, is "how many are being born" versus "how many are dying", both as a percentage of the population. Odd generations with many offspring can have a momentary difference but don't affect the overall picture.

How difficult can this be to understand?

It's obvious to you that we are dying out because... Sorry, just you saying so won't cut it. Provide the evidence, please. Provide the evidence from named scientists that support your claim. Provide it, or be proven a hypocrite.

It is obvious, not due to some authority, but due to mathematics.

Also provide evidence for the claim "we are always just 100 years from extinction", because I've certainly never heard -that- before, and I'd like to find if this is true, or just something you made up in your head. Especially when you're telling me that a birthrate of about 1.0 kid per person in a near infant death-free society of several hundred millions of people, can wipe it out in just a hundred years. Or even a thousand years.

You are making me laugh, here. The evidence that we are always just 100 years from extinction is that we generally at most live 100 years.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Hehe cut and pasted wrong link, then comp locked up

No problem. Happens to me all the time.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know when mankind will be extinct. I said so already.

However, the reason we are in rush is that we are from developed nations and we are dying out.


We could be extinct in a 100 years. Obviously I don't think so.


But just remember, please, that we are always just 100 years from extinction. No matter how many people we are on the planet.

I'm not as worried as you are. We will soon control it if our very survival depends on it. And we haven't even concluded that it will happen, just that the threat [on our survival] is a probable future. I would dry the sweat off.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm not as worried as you are. We will soon control it if our very survival depends on it.

Why do you think so?

And we haven't even concluded that it will happen, just that the threat [on our survival] is a probable future. I would dry the sweat off.

Glad to see you are coming around. "A probable future" is a long way from your first post!

 

[Thomas]

Why do you think so?

Why I think mankind will try to survive? Because that's what we do for a living.

Glad to see you are coming around. "A probable future" is a long way from your first post!

I never claimed otherwise, I just wondered why you wouldn't let immigration and infant mortality rates into the population growth equation, along-side fertility rates, and it's not the first time I use that phrase in this thread. Besides, "a probable future" can be many things. It's a quite lose term.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Why I think mankind will try to survive? Because that's what we do for a living.

You said "we would soon control it". What is this "it" that you refer to?

I never claimed otherwise, I just wondered why you wouldn't let immigration and infant mortality rates into the population growth equation, along-side fertility rates, and it's not the first time I use that phrase in this thread. Besides, "a probable future" can be many things. It's a quite lose term.

Admit it, you now understand!

 

[Katana]

I am a (relatively) intelligent, highly-educated, American-born woman who with her definitely intelligent, highly-educated, American-born husband does not want children.

I am part of the problem.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I am a (relatively) intelligent, highly-educated, American-born woman who with her definitely intelligent, highly-educated, American-born husband does not want children.

I am part of the problem.

Sorry to hear that.

And I thought you were one of the good guys.