DD & CFLarsen's Birth rate thread

[Hawk one]

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?

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.

And my point is that I think you keep confusing simple birth rate with birth-to-death rate. Or as I call the latter, the population rate.

And if we stick to the latter only, it's obvious you are ignoring that because there was a period in time in the developed countries where the population rate skyrocketed - for the reason I pointed out - and then people realised that when you can be expected to upbring nearly all your children (as opposed to regularly have one or several dying), then the birth rate in itself can be much lower, and you'll still be able to maintain population.

That is, there will be a second transition period where there'll be a lot more old people dying off, which will for a couple of decades decrease the population rate. But once that is over with, you'll have a stable population rate without having to increase the birth rate, which means the society won't be in any danger of "dying out".

And we're getting in that transitional period right now, because it was in the period before and World War 2 that the infant mortality rate started really sinking here in the West, but it wasn't until the 60s/70s that the birthrate dropped accordingly.

 

[DanishDynamite]

From that perspective, the entire world is due to die out eventually.

Exactly! Hence my concern.

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.

What do you mean "if"? It is a concern as we speak!

Population growth.

Yes, but not in the developed world, which is what we are discussing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

And my point is that I think you keep confusing simple birth rate with birth-to-death rate. Or as I call the latter, the population rate.

And if we stick to the latter only, it's obvious you are ignoring that because there was a period in time in the developed countries where the population rate skyrocketed - for the reason I pointed out - and then people realised that when you can be expected to upbring nearly all your children (as opposed to regularly have one or several dying), then the birth rate in itself can be much lower, and you'll still be able to maintain population.

That is, there will be a second transition period where there'll be a lot more old people dying off, which will for a couple of decades decrease the population rate. But once that is over with, you'll have a stable population rate without having to increase the birth rate, which means the society won't be in any danger of "dying out".

And we're getting in that transitional period right now, because it was in the period before and World War 2 that the infant mortality rate started really sinking here in the West, but it wasn't until the 60s/70s that the birthrate dropped accordingly.

Sorry, Hawk One, I simply don't understand. The infant mortality rate is of no importance to this discussion, as far as I can see.

 

[Hawk one]

Since you don't even notice who's been posting, you really aren't paying much attention to the voices outside your head, are you?

Once again: Right now, developed countries has a population rate going down because we are getting so many more old people, percentagewise of the total population.

But once this generation of old people are gone, in about 20-30 years, then our population rate will stabilise and quite possibly even start growing again.

And that will happen even without having to increase the birth rates.

See how easy it is?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Since you don't even notice who's been posting, you really aren't paying much attention to the voices outside your head, are you?

Heh! Managed to rectify that error before you posted!

Once again: Right now, developed countries has a population rate going down because we are getting so many more old people, percentagewise of the total population.

But once this generation of old people are gone, in about 20-30 years, then our population rate will stabilise and quite possibly even start growing again.

And that will happen even without having to increase the birth rates.

See how easy it is?

It sounds wonderful, but is unfortunately hindered by the inconvenient fact that your Utopian view isn't supported by the facts today.

Unless, of course, you have some quite remarkable new facts to show?

 

[Thomas]

What do you mean "if"? It is a concern as we speak!

It's a concern yes, but not a valid concern yet when we speak of the survival of the species. It's not like we're in a rush.

Yes, but not in the developed world, which is what we are discussing.

I thought your original statement was that the population of the undeveloped world would take over the developed world, due to the difference in fertility rates. I merely noted that the difference wasn't as huge as shown in the fertility map you linked to, when the subject was still factors on population growth. To me, your goal post suddenly took a few steps to the right.

 

[Hawk one]

Don't need new facts. All I know is that we're already having a population growth. I agree that immigration is a partial count for this, but the difference between people being born and people dying in Norway is still so small that once we pass the transition period I mentioned, it'll be most likely to tip to the other scale again. Nothing about being utopic, all about being realistic.

 

[DanishDynamite]

it's a concern yes, but not a valid concern yet when we speak of the survival of the species. It's not like we're in a rush.

Of course we are in a rush! The people of the developed countries have now been deficient in their ability to procreate for a decade or more!

I thought your original statement was that the undeveloped world would take over the developed world, due to the difference in fertility rates. I merely noted that the difference wasn't as huge as shown in the fertility map you linked to, when the subject was still factors on population growth. To me, your goal post suddenly took a few steps to the right.

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you clarify?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Don't need new facts. All I know is that we're already having a population growth. I agree that immigration is a partial count for this, but the difference between people being born and people dying in Norway is still so small that once we pass the transition period I mentioned, it'll be most likely to tip to the other scale again. Nothing about being utopic, all about being realistic.

What bloody transition period? What in the world are you talking about?

Sorry, but I've never heard this weird "transition period" mentioned by anyone other than you. There is no "transition period". There are only statistics.

 

[Hawk one]

If you would take the time to learn about what happens when

a) Infant mortality rates lowers significantly,
b) birth rate stays the same for a while, and then finally
c) the birthrate lowers to reflect that you can expect more kids to grow up and therefore can get by with having fewer kids around

Then you'll understand why I'm not worried. But since your mind is pretty much determined to stay on the "The Western World is in danger!" because of low population growth rate without understanding the reasons behind those numbers, then there's really nothing I can do for you.

 

[Thomas]

Of course we are in a rush! The people of the developed countries have now been deficient in their ability to procreate for a decade or more!

So when would you expect the world to die out due to worldwide decrease in fertility rates?

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you clarify?

Infant mortality rates are of smaller concern when the goal post is worldwide Ragnarok in a fully developed world in a probable future.

 

[DanishDynamite]

If you would take the time to learn about what happens when

a) Infant mortality rates lowers significantly,
b) birth rate stays the same for a while, and then finally
c) the birthrate lowers to reflect that you can expect more kids to grow up and therefore can get by with having fewer kids around

Then you'll understand why I'm not worried. But since your mind is pretty much determined to stay on the "The Western World is in danger!" because of low population growth rate without understanding the reasons behind those numbers, then there's really nothing I can do for you.

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

 

[DanishDynamite]

So when would you expect the world to die out due to worldwide decrease in fertility rates?

I don't know. Why, is the precise answer important for you?

Infant mortality rates are of smaller concern when the goal post is worldwide Ragnarok in a fully developed world in a probable future.

Infant mortality rates are of no concern in this debate. Why try and make it so?

 

[Tailgater]

What bloody transition period? What in the world are you talking about?

Sorry, but I've never heard this weird "transition period" mentioned by anyone other than you. There is no "transition period". There are only statistics.

If I understand him right, he's speaking of the passing of the baby boom after ww2. The passing of a large boom in babies 60 years ago, that will occur over the next couple decades, might seem like a decline in population, but could just be the passing of a large generation. More data is required.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know. Why, is the precise answer important for you?

Because when you tell me that I'm in a rush, then I would like to know when to expect the apocalypse you speak of.

Infant mortality rates are of no concern in this debate. Why try and make it so?

I've already answered that once:

I merely noted [with the infant mortality rate] that the difference wasn't as huge as shown in the fertility map you linked to, when the subject was still factors on population growth.

 

[DanishDynamite]

If I understand him right, he's speaking of the passing of the baby boom after ww2. The passing of a large boom in babies 60 years ago, that will occur over the next couple decades, might seem like a decline in population, but could just be the passing of a large generation. More data is required.

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.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Because when you tell me that I'm in a rush, then I would like to know when to expect the apocalypse you speak of.

The apocalypse, as you call it, is now.

I've already answered that once:

No. You have talked of birthrates in Africa and similar stuff. It is irrelevant. The only thing of importance is how many live births there are per woman and how many deaths per populace.

 

[Tailgater]

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.

Who are these future population predicters?

Why wouldn't it since the boom happened mostly in developed countries?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Who are these future population predicters?

All predicters of future populations.

Why wouldn't it since the boom happened mostly in developed countries?

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

Sorry, I don't understand.

 

[Thomas]

The apocalypse, as you call it, is now.

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?

No. You have talked of birthrates in Africa and similar stuff. It is irrelevant. The only thing of importance is how many live births there are per woman and how many deaths per populace.

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.