Printable View
....isn't what you would think. The world on average is actually having a problem of UNDERpopulation. The latest trends in the past several decades has been to have less children.
The USA is actually doing alright, but some countries, specifically Russia, are going to start PAYING couples to have children.
I've been hearing this on the news, and in a few articles lately. I don't have a link at the moment, but I'll find one if somebody would like.
Has anybody else heard this?
No I haven't heard this.
I googled "world underpopulation" and got a few hits. It seems some countries are declining in birth rates.
You know I have heard a couple of news stories and read and article. But the thing that baffles me is: Why is this a problem? I am not attacking anyone here; I am just generally curious why the decline in birthrate globally would be a bad thing? :ne_nau: It would seem obvious that the Earth can only support so many humans therefore the birthrates would go down and the population would level off rather than continue to increase.
One of the stories I saw on TV seemed very slanted, like it was more of a thing justifying having a lot of Christian kids in America. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
James
http://btjdesign.com/emoticons/intheclub.gif
I think the main issue was it would damage the economy. I started hearing this about 2 months ago, so it may not be a current news story. I'll see what I can find.
Something with the economy I think, and their being lots of retired non-working folks and less working folks (not sure if actually less workers in numbers or overall from past years). But still I think the country can adjust to whatever crisis this is creating. It seems to be a slow change that takes place over time anyway.
I'm still not having a kid, even if it means saving a country! Well, adoption maybe.
i think we've likely already exceeded the capacity of the earth to support us long ago. the invention of modern fertilizers has greatly improved our ability to grow food beyond the natural capacity of the land. if it weren't for fertilizers we wouldn't be able to support a population of this size, as i understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000
No comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
http://www.indymedia.nl/img/2004/11/23578.jpg
Yeah, take a look at China, India, and Sub-Saharan Africa and tell me that there is a declining birthrate. They will more than make up for Russia, and Europe. IMO, this planet is already overpopulated. Notice that most of the declining birthrates are from developed, and/or majority white countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
It seems the whole "under-population" argument is one with economic, social, or political bases rather than a science basis as the "over-population" argument uses.
The "too many old people vs. # of working people" facet has already been mentioned. Also, a country who is losing population is also losing consumers and producers, and in some aspects is losing an economic (and possibly military) edge to countries (like India) whose population continues to grow rapidly. Another factor I've heard mentioned is the racial/ethnic one-- where social groups that have curbed child-bearing for whatever reason are becoming alarmed (to various degrees) as other groups continue to reproduce more rapidly and become a more dominant political and cultural force. Examples of preceived or real situations would be latin-american immigrants in the USA and muslim immigrants in Europe. This is not a new problem and many of the roots of racism stem from such situations.
On that note:Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_ski_cowboy
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...ml_video=69108
Colbert: All you need to know. 4 min clip listen to the part at the end.
James
I don't get a specific video playing when i click this link...Quote:
Originally Posted by James_B_Wads2000
I re-pasted the url and I had to temporality allow pop-ups. Or you could go to:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/t...rt/index.jhtml
Scroll down to