DD & CFLarsen's Birth rate thread

[Thomas]

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

I didn't write "it" anywhere in that sentence. You're losing it.

Admit it, you now understand!

Look, it is common knowledge that the fertility rates are staggering in the western world, show me where I ever stated otherwise or quit that baloney. Stick to the facts.

The real question is whether the fertility rates will have that impact a handful of doomsayers (and you) predict. The truth is that only the population in Europe looks to be in a stagnation worth looking at, but not in a manner where it is imminent that we take action now. Or are in a rush, as you put it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I didn't write "it" anywhere in that sentence. You're losing it.

Just tell me what you meant. Thanks.

Look, it is common knowledge that the fertility rates are staggering in the western world, show me where I ever stated otherwise or quit that baloney. Stick to the facts.

I have done nothing but. It is your opinion which keeps flowing in the wind.

The real question is whether the fertility rates will have that impact a handful of doomsayers (and you) predict. The truth is that only the population in Europe looks to be in a stagnation worth looking at, but not in a manner where it is imminent that we take action now. Or are in a rush, as you put it.

Of course we are in a rush. What makes you think we aren't?

 

[Luke T.]

Thanks for the link. Could you point out its relevance to this thread?

I gather "its relevance to this thread" means "how it supports my theory".

 

[DanishDynamite]

I gather "relevance to this thread" means "supports my theory".

Not at all. Could you perhaps point out its relevance, Luke?

 

[Luke T.]

Not at all. Could you perhaps point out its relevance, Luke?

So I give one link which says the low birth rate in Japan may be due to "discrimination in the workplace and poor government policies", and you ask in all wide-eyed innocence, "Could you perhaps point out its relevance to this thread?"

In the very next post I give a link which says the low birth rate in Japan may be due to Japanese people being too stressed out and tired to have sex, and instead of asking its relevance, you are all over it, "Yes. Underscores my point."

So, it is obvious. You don't want to hear anything that doesn't match up with your theory.

Clear as vodka, DD.

 

[Luke T.]

Also, you aren't worried about the actual population growth or shrinkage rates of "developed nations". All you want to hear about are the birth rates. What does it matter how the country increases its population? Who cares if the birth rates are dropping if the population actually isn't?

Because immigrants to "developed nations" are darkies and are soon going to outnumber the lighter peoples.

Clear as vodka.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So I give one link which says the low birth rate in Japan may be due to "discrimination in the workplace and poor government policies", and you ask in all wide-eyed innocence, "Could you perhaps point out its relevance to this thread?"

In the very next post I give a link which says the low birth rate in Japan may be due to Japanese people being too stressed out and tired to have sex, and instead of asking its relevance, you are all over it, "Yes. Underscores my point."

So, it is obvious. You don't want to hear anything that doesn't match up with your theory.

Clear as vodka, DD.

Luke, my friend.

This thread is about whether developed nations are producing enough people to counter the dying of old people.

If you think you have something of import to add to this discussion, please do so.

 

[Luke T.]

Luke, my friend.

This thread is about whether developed nations are producing enough people to counter the dying of old people.

If you think you have something of import to add to this discussion, please do so.

Show me one developed nation that has a smaller population today than it did 20 years ago, DD.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Also, you aren't worried about the actual population growth or shrinkage rates of "developed nations". All you want to hear about are the birth rates. What does it matter how the country increases its population? Who cares if the birth rates are dropping if the population actually isn't?

Because immigrants to "developed nations" are darkies and are soon going to outnumber the lighter peoples.

Clear as vodka.

I love how you put thoughts and words into my mouth.

I beleive I've explained my view and my problem quite clearly previously. Please have a look at them.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Show me one developed nation that has a smaller population today than it did 20 years ago, DD.

What on Earth would that prove?

 

[Luke T.]

What on Earth would that prove?

"This thread is about whether developed nations are producing enough people to counter the dying of old people."

If the population is increasing, then obviously the nation is producing more than enough people. So where is the problem, exactly? Where is this "dying out" phenomena of which you speak?

 

[DanishDynamite]

"This thread is about whether developed nations are producing enough people to counter the dying of old people."

If the population is increasing, then obviously the nation is producing more than enough people. So where is the problem, exactly?

Eh..I'm talking here about organic growth. I.e, the growth from the extra number of people produced by the inhabitants versus the death of same.

I thought I'd made this clear.

 

[Luke T.]

Eh..I'm talking here about organic growth. I.e, the growth from the extra number of people produced by the inhabitants versus the death of same.

I thought I'd made this clear.

What difference does that make if the population is still growing? How does a low birth rate equal "dying out"?

 

[DanishDynamite]

What difference does that make if the population is still growing? How does a low birth rate equal "dying out"?

Sorry, not understood. Are you perhaps incorporating immigration into your calculations?

 

[Luke T.]

Sorry, not understood. Are you perhaps incorporating immigration into your calculations?

Yes. Of course. You think you can blindly exclude them when you speak of a nation "dying out"?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yes. Of course. You think you can blindly exclude them when you speak of a nation "dying out"?

Yes and no.

Please look back through the thread, Luke, to see what I mean.

In short, though, the "problem" is that nations currently not developed will soon become developed.

 

[Thomas]

Just tell me what you meant. Thanks.

You asked me why I think mankind would try to find a solution for survival if we are confronted with an imminent survival crisis, and I said: "because, that's what we do for a living". Meaning that survival is our primary trade.

I have done nothing but. It is your opinion which keeps flowing in the wind.

My opinion has been all along, that the fertility rate might be an issue of serious concern (read on).

Of course we are in a rush. What makes you think we aren't?

The doomsayers imminent collapse doesn't seem to be the general opinion. I have only found a handful doomsday proponents. By 2050, there will be as many Europeans as there were in 1960, provided the statistics continue the same path as recently. Besides, states can't accept that too large portions of their populations vanish, economically or otherwise, they would step in and make various regulations - and probably a lot of benefits for families.

 

[Luke T.]

Yes and no.

Please look back through the thread, Luke, to see what I mean.

In short, though, the "problem" is that nations currently not developed will soon become developed.

I don't see an undeveloped country becoming developed as a problem.

And if I live in a house that is built for 10 people, and it has 15 people in it, I don't see it as a problem that those who die off or otherwise leave are not all replaced.

You ever look to see if there is a correlation between readily available birth control and birth rates?

Also, some people don't have kids because it means they won't be able to afford a BMW and a big screen TV if they do. No BMW! Oh, the suffering! Unbearable!

The more luxuries available, the more choices a person has to make about priorities.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You asked me why I think mankind would try to find a solution for survival if we are confronted with an imminent survival crisis, and I said: "because, that's what we do for a living". Meaning that survival is our primary trade.

In whic we agree.

My opinion has been all along, that the fertility rate might be an issue of serious concern (read on).

Glad you (almost) feel this way.

The doomsayers imminent collapse doesn't seem to be the general opinion. I have only found a handful doomsday proponents. By 2050, there will be as many Europeans as there were in 1960, provided the statistics continue the same path as recently. Besides, states can't accept that too large portions of their populations vanish, economically or otherwise, they would step in and make various regulations - and probably a lot of benefits for families.

I have no idea what soothsayers you have been hearing, but the bottom line is that the population of the developed world cannot sustain itself. It is dying out.

I wish to change that.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I don't see an undeveloped country becoming developed as a problem.

I don't either, as such. Only as part of the problem I'm describing.

And if I live in a house that is built for 10 people, and it has 15 people in it, I don't see it as a problem that those who die off or otherwise leave are not all replaced.

I wouldn't either.

You ever look to see if there is a correlation between readily available birth control and birth rates?

Nope. Is it relevant?

Also, some people don't have kids because it means they won't be able to afford a BMW and a big screen TV if they do. No BMW! Oh, the suffering! Unbearable!

The more luxuries available, the more choices a person has to make about priorities.

Exactly! And the choice is already clear.