Is Negative Population Growth Bad?

[L.Y.S.]

Well, in some areas of the world there is a new trend emerging of women producing children below the fertility rate. (The rate with which it takes to stabilize a population and replace the parents). In fact, according to a U.N. study, if all women were to produce children at the rate of Germany (1.4 children per woman), then the human species would become extinct in 600 years.

There was another U.N. study. It suggests that around 2100 AD rates of birth would stabilize at two children per woman. However, there was nothing to really corroborate that other than speculation on the part of the U.N. that once the levels of childbearing dropped that they would rise again.

It appears that child bearing is on a steady decline. To add to the potential issue, the current environment of potential unemployment and homelessness add to the decrease in childbearing.

With all this being said. Is this a bad thing? If so, what can humanity do as a whole to fix it? Is it also in conjunction with contraception and poor social attitudes towards women? What promotes this decrease in children? And is it a problem we should fix at all? As always, discuss.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Conventional thinking seems to be that the most affluent, best-educated people in wealthy societies are the very ones who are deciding not to have as many children, while poor people and poor nations continue to procreate at a high rate.

A comedy movie called Idiocracy plays on this idea.

 

[The Don]

The current system of pensions and social provision in most of Western world is predicated on having a number of working people supporting a number of children and retired folk. Negative population growth will result in the working population becoming smaller. This can be addressed by getting people into the workforce younger or by keeping people in the workforce for longer (health permitting).

I've read reports which attribute this reduction in birthrate to a number of factors:

- Women having children later
- The need for two incomes in a family meaning fewer children
- Better and more accessible birth control
- Less need for more children

Having said that, the UK birth rate is at recent highs.

The groups that are keeping up their birth rates are the religious fundamentalists, maybe this is the future.

 

[Tolls]

Having said that, the UK birth rate is at recent highs.

That'll be me...sorry.

The groups that are keeping up their birth rates are the religious fundamentalists, maybe this is the future.

That's definitely not me, though.

 

[Floyt]

Long term, doubtlessly good; there is this small constant niggle of overpopulation... medium term, screws up the social contract as currently implemented in most countries that bother to have a pension scheme. Short term, the medium term problem is being leveraged by all manner of near-sighted demagogues into a national emergency, thus precluding any chance of arriving at the long term benefits.

Overall, we aren't good at this long term thing.

 

[Puppycow]

Japan is projected to lose a lot of population in the next 50 years.

I think that this is a good thing in the medium term.

I think that 7 billion is too many for this planet. Something like 1 to 3 billion seems like a good number to stabilize at in the long term. Any notion of the species going extinct due to low birth rate alone is ridiculous. There are species with only a few hundred individuals that are rebounding now. I think that we should be concerned not just with the proliferation of our own species but with ecological balance and the preservation of habitats for other species as well.

 

[Caper]

Well, in some areas of the world there is a new trend emerging of women producing children below the fertility rate. (The rate with which it takes to stabilize a population and replace the parents). In fact, according to a U.N. study, if all women were to produce children at the rate of Germany (1.4 children per woman), then the human species would become extinct in 600 years.

There was another U.N. study. It suggests that around 2100 AD rates of birth would stabilize at two children per woman. However, there was nothing to really corroborate that other than speculation on the part of the U.N. that once the levels of childbearing dropped that they would rise again.

It appears that child bearing is on a steady decline. To add to the potential issue, the current environment of potential unemployment and homelessness add to the decrease in childbearing.

With all this being said. Is this a bad thing? If so, what can humanity do as a whole to fix it? Is it also in conjunction with contraception and poor social attitudes towards women? What promotes this decrease in children? And is it a problem we should fix at all? As always, discuss.

Terrible thing in my home town and Island... it will never be the same. 3rd world isn't having the same problem.

I think all of socialist Europe is built on the third world coming in and taking care of them as they get old.

 

[ddt]

Well, in some areas of the world there is a new trend emerging of women producing children below the fertility rate. (The rate with which it takes to stabilize a population and replace the parents). In fact, according to a U.N. study, if all women were to produce children at the rate of Germany (1.4 children per woman), then the human species would become extinct in 600 years.

This is by no means a new trend. East Germany has been struggling with low fertility rates throughout its existence:

and after that time, East Germany had very low birth rates,[34] except for a recovery in the 1980s when the birth rate in East Germany was considerably higher than in West Germany,[35] and in general the birth rate per woman was never much lower than in West Germany, except during the 1990s.

and (West) Germany has had below-replacement fertility rates since the 1970s - see the table here (click "show" to see the table).

With all this being said. Is this a bad thing? If so, what can humanity do as a whole to fix it? Is it also in conjunction with contraception and poor social attitudes towards women? What promotes this decrease in children? And is it a problem we should fix at all? As always, discuss.

In fact, it is affluency which causes low fertility rates. Poor people have many children as a crude pension scheme. Once GDP rises in a country, you see the birth rates decrease.

And yes, low birth rates are a problem in western societies. Pensions are often set up in a way that they are paid out of current tax incomes. Health care (for those civilized western countries that have UHC) is set up in a similar way. With too few children being born, ultimately you're looking at a top-heavy population pyramid with too few working-age people to support too many retired people.

 

[ddt]

The groups that are keeping up their birth rates are the religious fundamentalists, maybe this is the future.

Our religious fundies, politically organized in the SGP, have consistently polled 2 to 3 seats in parliament. Apparently, of their on average 10 children, 8 have lapsed in faith.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Long term, doubtlessly good; there is this small constant niggle of overpopulation... medium term, screws up the social contract as currently implemented in most countries that bother to have a pension scheme. Short term, the medium term problem is being leveraged by all manner of near-sighted demagogues into a national emergency, thus precluding any chance of arriving at the long term benefits.

Overall, we aren't good at this long term thing.

Overpopulation has largely been regarded as myth. Management of resources seems to be a much more important issue. Can we not manage resources with more people? With a slightly above average replacement rate of 2.5 children per women be bad? Some people quote 2.5 as being replacement rate, but that's only in a nation with a moderate mortality rate. In a nation with low mortality, 2.5 births per woman is actually growth.

Another member has cited why it's bad, it puts strain on healthcare and retirement system.

 

[rjh01]

One problem with a low birth rate is that in some areas of research can only be done by people in their 20s. If you have not made your name by the time you are 30 you never will in those areas.

 

[casebro]

A country can't have eternal growth. Eventually, it would get awful crowded.

In the U.S., ever since the Pilgrims ran into Plymouth Rock, out economy has been based on growth. The sooner we back off, and come up with a plan based on stability (both economy and population) the less painful the transition will be.

We've got lots of big thinkers with lots of big computers, too bad we have lots of big politicians to hold them back.

 

[icerat]

The current system of pensions and social provision in most of Western world is predicated on having a number of working people supporting a number of children and retired folk.

This is big problem #1 and a lot of what governments are panicking about now.

In the U.S., ever since the Pilgrims ran into Plymouth Rock, out economy has been based on growth.

This is big problem #2 and not limited to the US.

I think, technologically speaking, we're more than capable of coping with a much larger population if we put our minds to it. I believe we can also do so in an ecologically sustainable way.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A faster way to reduce population, without much curtailing copulation, involves a lot of H.E. (Fuel air, please chime in if you've a mind to).

It's a method, but not the only method, and maybe not a preferred method.

 

[rjh01]

A faster way to reduce population, without much curtailing copulation, involves a lot of H.E. (Fuel air, please chime in if you've a mind to).

It's a method, but not the only method, and maybe not a preferred method.

Problem is that it costs a lot of money to educate and raise a person. So to kill them shortly after they become an adult is very wasteful (This is a good argument against conscription). Killing people who can no longer be productive is another matter.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

It's not really bad. What you're seeing is that the population has reached sort of a natural point of equilibrium between being able to sustain its numbers while not overgrowing to deplete all accessible resources.

Different populations of animals have encountered this in different ways. In our case, it's coming from the fact that kids are no longer an asset that they once were. Our technology has basically severely reduced the need for farm labor. It used to be that kids enabled your family to feed itself by being extra work hands. Now they are a liability in that they don't provide you with any source of income, yet they still maintain all of the expenses.

I wouldn't worry about us dying off any time soon. My only concern is that a lot of Islamic fundamentalists breed in huge numbers...Some are going to call me racist for that, but Islam isn't a race, so race plays no role. What I'm concerned about is those numbers overwhelming the rest, and free society declines.

 

[Caper]

I see a big war playing into this somehow.

 

[MikeG]

Overpopulation has largely been regarded as myth. Management of resources seems to be a much more important issue. Can we not manage resources with more people? ...........

Not by anyone with any interest in the natural world. Loss of habitat is an enormous problem, and is tied directly to the expanding human population. Certainly, the world can support many more humans than it does at the moment, but it does this at the cost of the natural world. The result: there are fewer and fewer spaces left for wildlife.

Mike

 

[MikeG]

......... My only concern is that a lot of Islamic fundamentalists breed in huge numbers...Some are going to call me racist for that, but Islam isn't a race, so race plays no role. What I'm concerned about is those numbers overwhelming the rest, and free society declines.

I think muslims just found them to be more attractive than women, so they banned them to make sure there weren't any around, that way they could grow their population.

While I am all supportive of drones myself, and I don't have any love lost for those killed, I think they may be more useful alive until their cause is defeated. At which point go ahead and issue the summary execution that they would have otherwise gotten.

I'm wondering if there isn't a pattern starting to emerge in your thinking........

 

[Roger Ramjets]

technologically speaking, we're more than capable of coping with a much larger population if we put our minds to it. I believe we can also do so in an ecologically sustainable way.

True, but right now we can only support a population of 7+ billion through the use of non-renewable fossil fuels and other unsustainable resources - which are both running out and destroying our environment. Unless we really put our minds to it, it won't be long before even 3 billion will be way too many.

Problem is that it costs a lot of money to educate and raise a person. So to kill them shortly after they become an adult is very wasteful

Better to kill them much earlier, before they even start to become a drain on the economy. Obviously it's better if they are never conceived in the first place, but accidents will happen - and sometimes parents don't realize what a burden a child is until they've had one.

One problem with a low birth rate is that in some areas of research can only be done by people in their 20s. If you have not made your name by the time you are 30 you never will in those areas.

I don't think anybody is advocating a zero birth rate, but we should eliminate those who will be a net drain on society. Obviously we need to keep producing enough 20 something's to do the essential research that only they can do, but any more is just an extravagance.

The problem is how do we determine in advance which of them will become productive researchers, and which will be a net drain? There is a high correlation between academic performance and subsequent research output. Therefore I propose that underachievers be 'weeded out' before Graduation, and the saying 'publish or die' should be taken literally.

And yes, low birth rates are a problem in western societies. Pensions are often set up in a way that they are paid out of current tax incomes. Health care (for those civilized western countries that have UHC) is set up in a similar way. With too few children being born, ultimately you're looking at a top-heavy population pyramid with too few working-age people to support too many retired people.

I keep hearing this, but it's only a problem because we keep making it into one. With a well educated affluent population, mechanization and better healthcare, old people in western societies can be far more productive than those in poor countries where back-breaking labor is the norm.

So why is it still a problem? Because we keep trying to perpetuate a socioeconomic system which relies on 'growth' (a Ponzi scheme involving an ever-increasing population of 'investors') and concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few 'owners of the means of production' (when it should be fairly distributed amongst the entire population which is making it possible).

We have enough technology at our fingertips today to dramatically reduce working hours and physical effort, so even people in their 80's should be able to enjoy being productive and continue to make a valuable contribution. But in practice only a few professionals, corporate bigwigs, rich investors and politicians have been able to achieve this status. Meanwhile the middle and lower classes are having to work longer hours in more stressful environments than they did 20 years ago!