DD & CFLarsen's Birth rate thread

[Thomas]

The above post is one of the reasons why the developed world is dying out.

I wasn't aware that it was.

Have a look at the birth per woman statistics.

From this is does sound an awful lot like you mean that the birth per woman stats should indicate that the developed world is dying out. When you are then presented with factors like immigration and infant mortality rate, you cling to the approach that we can only use birth rates in the equation, although several other factors are equally important to whether "the developed is dying out". Hmm.. what is your point then?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So I was being a bit dramatic! Just trying to fit in.

Yes, you were being dramatic. No problem, I'm often that way myself.

I hope we can now get back on topic.

 

[DanishDynamite]

From this is does sound an awful lot like you mean that the birth per woman stats should indicate that the developed world is dying out. When you are then presented with factors like immigration and infant mortality rate, you cling to the approach that we can only use birth rates in the equation, although several other factors are equally important to whether "the developed is dying out". Hmm.. what is your point then?

My point is as I said. The developed countries of the world cannot even sustain their populations as they have far less births as they have deaths.

That they are therefore now reliant on immigration to sustain their population, is a seperate question.

 

[Thomas]

My point is as I said. The developed countries of the world cannot even sustain their populations as they have far less births as they have deaths.

That they are therefore now reliant on immigration to sustain their population, is a seperate question.

So in other words, the western world probably isn't dying out?

 

[DanishDynamite]

So in other words, the western world probably isn't dying out?

So in other words, they are.

 

[Thomas]

So in other words, they are.

So your concern is that the current population may die out, not the society. That's better, but mind you, that while they have a high fertility rate in vast parts of the third world, then they also have more than ten times the infancy death rate that we do.
So you can basically scratch ten or more percent from the fertility rates in vast parts of the third world, as they will die as infants.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So your concern is that the current population may die out, not the society.

Yes and no.

My concern is that as societies get more and more advanced, the proclination to have children seems less and less.

Whic is fine, if you are combating overpopulation, but which is not fine when you are dying out.

That's better, but mind you, that while they have a high fertility rate in vast parts of the third world, then they also have more than ten times the infancy death rate that we do.
So you can basically scratch ten or more percent from the fertility rates in vast parts of the third world, as they will die as infants.

Relevance?

 

[Luke T.]

DD, I gather by "developed countries" you mean "white people".

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD, I gather by "developed countries" you mean "white people".

I mean developed countries. Japan, for example, is a developed country. I'm sure there is an official list somewhere.

 

[Luke T.]

I mean developed countries. Japan, for example, is a developed country. I'm sure there is an official list somewhere.

Perhaps you need to specify, then. Make a list.

As for Japan:

Japan currently has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Discrimination in the workplace and poor government policies have been blamed for deterring many Japanese women from having children.

BBC News

 

[Luke T.]

Or...

Falling Japan birth rate due to lack of sex.

"Japanese people simply aren't having sex," Dr. Kunio Kitamura, director of the Japan Family Planning Association, was quoted as saying by the Japan Times, an English language daily.

An association survey of 936 people between the ages of 16 and 49 showed 31 percent had not had sex for more than a month "for no particular reason" -- a condition known as "sexless."

"As much as subsidies and welfare programmes are important, sexlessness is also a critical issue in this problem."

Japan's fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman bears in her lifetime -- fell to an all-time low of 1.25 last year. Demographers say a rate of 2.1 is needed to keep a population from declining.

Kitamura said that while many men in workaholic Japan are simply too "stressed out" from their jobs to have enough energy for sex, many other couples simply do not have sex regularly.

In the association's survey, 44 percent of the people who said they weren't having much sex felt that having a relationship with the opposite sex was "very tiresome" or "tiresome."

Too pooped to pop.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Perhaps you need to specify, then. Make a list.

I'll have a look for an "official list" if you want. But I think everyone knows what the term means.

As for Japan:



BBC News

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

 

[DanishDynamite]

Or...

Falling Japan birth rate due to lack of sex.

Too pooped to pop.

Yes. Underscores my point.

 

[Hawk one]

Yes and no.

My concern is that as societies get more and more advanced, the proclination to have children seems less and less.

Whic is fine, if you are combating overpopulation, but which is not fine when you are dying out.

Well, then everything's dandy. Because the human race is nowhere near dying out as far as anyone can tell. In fact, the developed parts are just keeping on doing better, and since we also keep on attracting people from the rest of the world, humans will hang around for a while.

Relevance?

Why do you even need to ask?

I'll break it down into basic maths using a hypothetical excample. If Couple X has 3 kids and lose one as an infant, and Couple Y have 2 kids and lose none, what is the most important factor in not dying out? Merely giving birth, or also upbringing the children?

And let's not forget that upbringing a child will demand lots of resources. So not only is Couple X not better off than Couple Y, but they've also been spending energy that - from the point of biology - was in hindsight pointless.


Moving over to real life, it's in any case clear that the Western world is nowhere near dying out anyway, and that it's merely a transition period we have while we have a lot of old ones who suddenly survived after concepts like medicine and hygiene were introduced, but before the birth rates were going down to reflect the decreased infant mortality rate. So once the "old wave" of the next 30 years are gone, then I expect the population rates to get more stable almost by default.

 

[Number Six]

DD, I think you're getting oversemantical (if that's a word). This thread is going on and on and still people can't figure out exactly what you mean. When someone says something that you think doesn't exactly reflect what you were trying to get at, just say "Let me clarify" and then clarify.

Are you saying that the people in developed countries aren't reproducing themselves? Nobody will disagree with you there. Or are you commenting on what the consequences of that? Some developed countries take in enough immigrants to keep growing so it's not the development itself that's dying out.

What are you getting it? This seems to be all parrying and thrusting over matters minute, and maybe you enjoy that and that's why it is the way it is, but as a consequence not a lot of content is being bandied about. It's 100 posts into the thread and people are still trying to figure out your position.

 

[Tailgater]

Does a low population rate mean "dying out" or "balancing out" since 0 just represents no change? Even .1 is still an increase. I made the statement earlier that I also though a decrease in population would be ok, but not extinction. I think that if people thought that humans were dying out, they might have more babies. Alot of people feel that the world is populated enough though.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Well, then everything's dandy. Because the human race is nowhere near dying out as far as anyone can tell. In fact, the developed parts are just keeping on doing better, and since we also keep on attracting people from the rest of the world, humans will hang around for a while.

Uh..you seem to be missing the point.

Developed countries cannot sustain their population through natural births. More and more countries are going from developing to developed.

Do you see the problem now?

Why do you even need to ask?

I'll break it down into basic maths using a hypothetical excample. If Couple X has 3 kids and lose one as an infant, and Couple Y have 2 kids and lose none, what is the most important factor in not dying out? Merely giving birth, or also upbringing the children?

And let's not forget that upbringing a child will demand lots of resources. So not only is Couple X not better off than Couple Y, but they've also been spending energy that - from the point of biology - was in hindsight pointless.


Moving over to real life, it's in any case clear that the Western world is nowhere near dying out anyway, and that it's merely a transition period we have while we have a lot of old ones who suddenly survived after concepts like medicine and hygiene were introduced, but before the birth rates were going down to reflect the decreased infant mortality rate. So once the "old wave" of the next 30 years are gone, then I expect the population rates to get more stable almost by default.

I have no idea what you are mumbling about. There is no indication whatsoever that birth rates will suddenly increase sometime in the future. If you have evidence for this, kindly show it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD, I think you're getting oversemantical (if that's a word). This thread is going on and on and still people can't figure out exactly what you mean. When someone says something that you think doesn't exactly reflect what you were trying to get at, just say "Let me clarify" and then clarify.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear.

Are you saying that the people in developed countries aren't reproducing themselves? Nobody will disagree with you there.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Or are you commenting on what the consequences of that? Some developed countries take in enough immigrants to keep growing so it's not the development itself that's dying out.

Certainly there are states which currently aren't developed nations and who have a higher birth-to-death rate.

What are you getting it? This seems to be all parrying and thrusting over matters minute, and maybe you enjoy that and that's why it is the way it is, but as a consequence not a lot of content is being bandied about. It's 100 posts into the thread and people are still trying to figure out your position.

Hope everything is clear now.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Does a low population rate mean "dying out" or "balancing out" since 0 just represents no change? Even .1 is still an increase. I made the statement earlier that I also though a decrease in population would be ok, but not extinction. I think that if people thought that humans were dying out, they might have more babies. Alot of people feel that the world is populated enough though.

My point has to do with the case of the developed countries. Perhaps my answer to Hawk One can clarify things:

"Developed countries cannot sustain their population through natural births. More and more countries are going from developing to developed. "

 

[Thomas]

Yes and no.

My concern is that as societies get more and more advanced, the proclination to have children seems less and less.

Whic is fine, if you are combating overpopulation, but which is not fine when you are dying out.

From that perspective, the entire world is due to die out eventually. And as per statistics, then it is of course a valid concern. I'm personally pretty confident, that when (or if) the fertility rate really becomes a problem for the survival of the species, then we will find a solution.

Relevance?

Population growth.