• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DD & CFLarsen's Birth rate thread

CFLarsen said:
It's not me who is trying to make a point here. You are.

What meaning are you trying to derive?
Click to expand...

I am attempting to work out what the OP means, if it is true, and if so what the consequences are. I've expressed in my previous post what my current interpretation is, and why I consider the ideas behind it false.

Perhaps DD would like to comment on the discussion so far and explain his point in more detail.

CFLarsen said:
They are highly relevant. If you want to point to some cause, it certainly isn't because people in general are fleeing the countries.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to learn that this was a pointless statement, I really thought you were trying to say something there.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Not much to contemplate. It's just statistics: No developed country in the world is currently producing babies enough to even counter the dying of the old.

Look it up.
Click to expand...

This thread was started with an assertion that the developed world is dying out because, as DD says here, not enough people are being born to counter the number dying. I don't think that the birth rate alone of any country wouldn't answer that. You could compare the number of births to the number of deaths, I suppose, but wouldn't that suffer the same confounding as population growth?

What would be the best data to respond to DD's original premise?
 
ceo_esq said:
For whatever reason, the United States is an exception - perhaps the only exception - to this rule.
Click to expand...
Really? Could you provide a link to your source?

I've googled for a few seconds and found this source.

The first developed country to turn up on this list, is Iceland, at 2.1 births per woman. This is already too low to counter the death of old people. The next on the list is the United States at 2.0.
 
HarryKeogh said:
I'm okay with that. I don't think underpopulation will be of any concern in our lifetimes.

Unless you're the Pope (I believe the last one scolded Italy for not going forth and multiplying).
Click to expand...
I wonder why you would be okay with us dying out. Could you explain?
 
Number Six said:
I think one reason is immigration. First of all, the US population is growing more due to immigration than to women having lots of kids. Secondly, many of the women that are having lots of kids are new or recent immigrants.

If you could elimiinate new or recent immigrants I wonder if women in the US have more kids than countries in Europe. If so I bet it woudln't be by much.

Also, recent immigrants aside, the US is more religious than Europe and that may be a factor in women having more kids.
Click to expand...
Immigration is not relevant to the point I made.
 
H3LL said:
I don't agree as I have seen no evidence of yours to indicate it is so.

More important...Why do you think "the developed world" is some sort of exclusive club?

"Sorry!...No developing-country-people allowed in here matey! Use the tradesman's entrance at the back." :boggled:

What do you mean by "the developed world"?

China is developing, but the world of Shanghai and many other Chinese cities is developed, in some ways more so than in the West.

Am I in a developed world in Shanghai, but not in Anshan?
Am I in a developed world in Boston, but not in Ragan?

.
Click to expand...
I never said the developed world was an exclusive club. I just said what I said. Please deal with that. Thanks.
 
Katana said:
Because this planet and its non-human inhabitants would be much better off.
Click to expand...
The planet wouldn't care one way or the other. And while I care deeply about the preservation of other species, I wouldn't put their preservation above the very existence of my own species.
 
sphenisc said:
Why is immigration not relevant to the point you made? If the decrease in birth rate is compensated for by more immigration then developed countries will not 'die out'.
Click to expand...
It is not relevant because I was talking about the lack of fertility of the people in the developed countries.
 
DanishDynamite said:
The planet wouldn't care one way or the other. And while I care deeply about the preservation of other species, I wouldn't put their preservation above the very existence of my own species.
Click to expand...

I never said that the planet would care. I do, though, and wish that I felt better about what "my own species" was doing to it.
 
sphenisc said:
Why is immigration not relevant to the point you made? If the decrease in birth rate is compensated for by more immigration then developed countries will not 'die out'.
Click to expand...
Another factor one might consider, is infant mortality rate. Notice how the image is almost an inversion of the total fertility rate DD linked to earlier. And that in vast parts of Africa, more than every 10th child dies as an infant, whereas it is at most one percent of all infants in the western world.
 
DanishDynamite said:
It is not relevant because I was talking about the lack of fertility of the people in the developed countries.
Click to expand...

It is relevant. I think that you're talking about only the people who are born and die in developed countries. However, countries like the U.S. are comprised of not only natives but immigrants, too, who will factor into sustaining the population long-term.
 
Katana said:
I never said that the planet would care. I do, though, and wish that I felt better about what "my own species" was doing to it.
Click to expand...
Join the club.

There is though, at least for me, a very long step from saying that we need to do much more to preserve other species and as importantly their habitats, and to saying that it would be best all around if humans just went extinct.
 
Katana said:
It is relevant. I think that you're talking about only the people who are born and die in developed countries.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
However, countries like the U.S. are comprised of not only natives but immigrants, too, who will factor into sustaining the population long-term.
Click to expand...
All countries have immigrants (except perhaps North Korea :) ) as well as emigrants. They are not part of this discussion.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Join the club.

There is though, at least for me, a very long step from saying that we need to do much more to preserve other species and as importantly their habitats, and to saying that it would be best all around if humans just went extinct.
Click to expand...

So I was being a bit dramatic! Just trying to fit in.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom