NationStates Jolt Archive

http://techcentralstation.com/012705D.html

Talk about an interesting article.

Will underpopulation become the future threat rather than overpopulation?

If all this is true it would make sense. All species have ways to regulate population control when overcrowding occurs (even though starvation seems to be the largest mechanism). Is the declining birth rate just one of our defenses against overpopulation?

A lot of interesting economic points are brought up as well. Opinions?

Scary. First, I used to want kids. Now I don't. But this article has me now officially undecided.

Very scary :eek:

I sure hope its the threat of the future. What a blissful threat indeed.

Nice signature btw. lol

To put it straightforwardly, and perhaps a little cynically, in the past children used to be regarded as investments that provided their parents with means of subsistence in old age. In Czech the word "vejminek" (a place in a farmhouse reserved for the farmer's old parents) is actually derived from a verb meaning "to stipulate": in the deed of transfer, the old farmer stipulated the conditions on which the farm was to be transferred to his son. Instead of an "intergenerational" policy, there used to be direct dependence of parents on their children. This meant that people had immediate economic motivation to have a sufficiently numerous and well-bred offspring - whereas today's anonymous system makes all workers pay for the pensions of all retirees in an utterly depersonalized manner.

Taxes are pivotal

Two points:

1. This article appears to blame a great deal of lower birth rates on tax rates. It makes no reference whatsoever to the point that women in the West now have access to safe, effective birth control and families can now choose not to have children and still have a happy sex life. It blames the entire fall of the birth rate on the tax system.

2. They fail to mention that people who had children to support them in their old age also are expected to provide for their children. The 1950's were a special time in the history of humanity where a) middle class people existed and b) they had the luxury of low costs, job security, and adequate pay for work done. They also fail to note that the social welfare system in the US was well underway in the 1950's, thanks to the New Deal, so the article writer's parents were paying income taxes then too.

Furthermore, he uses the example of the Czech farmers. Sure, the parents can pass the farm down to one son and his wife to support them but what excuse do they have for having more than one healthy son? If you have more sons than that who all want to farm, traditionally you split the farm up between them - who split their plots between their sons, and so on, until nobody has enough to live on. Another way, of course, was to send sons to careers in the military or the clergy, which was popular amongst landed nobles. Of course, if you weren't a landed noble you could still get into the army or clergy, but its not like you could afford the cost of buying an officer's commission or bishophric.

Anyway, I don't disagree with the premise that declining birthrates may be a defense against overpopulation, but after that the whole thing turns into an anti-tax rant.

I sure hope its the threat of the future. What a blissful threat indeed.

Nice signature btw. lol

I came up with that joke by myself. :D

I hates politikal korektness, don't you? :p

Wow... that article is so bigoted.

This gnostic prophet is dead, but Islam is threatening democracy in Europe, expecially all the ones called Osama.

Either that or guy doesn't realise that placing all that infomation so closely implies that they're inter-related.

The end of democracy in Europe?

The prophet Mani is dead. But another prophet's teaching is still very much alive. In 2002 the most common first name given to newborn babies was Mohamed. The name Osama finished at a handsome 12th position.

Anyway, I personally believe that the aging population in Europe is due to it being densely populated (not much room left for expansion when compared to other regions) and the bust after the baby boomer generation.

Wow... that article is so bigoted.

This gnostic prophet is dead, but Islam is threatening democracy in Europe, expecially all the ones called Osama.

Either that or guy doesn't realise that placing all that infomation so closely implies that they're inter-related.



Anyway, I personally believe that the aging population in Europe is due to it being densely populated (not much room left for expansion when compared to other regions) and the bust after the baby boomer generation.

Oh yeah. Bigoted without a doubt. I think the Ad Hoc logic fallacy is in play here (likely others).

I too think the population is in a state of balance. Personally, I was more interested in discussing the declining birthrate, not the author's 'rationales'.

But I did find his POV interesting so I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

Sorry, resisting urge to denounce the whole article as bull.

He's using Birth's per woman rather than birth compared to death rate and net migration rates as that's advantegeous to his arguement, despite the fact that the former are a much clearer indicator of population growth or decline.

France and the UK both have higher birth rates than death rates alone, yet there birth's per woman are significantly below 2.1. And I have no idea what is the cause for this discrepancy. France has 12 births/1000 compared to 9 deaths/1000.
.
However, both Italy and Germany have lower birth rates than death rates, but net imigration is still causing an overall increase in population.

The problem that Europe faces as a whole is an aging population, increased Life expectancy and a static retirement age. People are now retired for a longer period of their life than ever before. To me it seems obvious why social security is strained.

Sorry, resisting urge to denounce the whole article as bull.

He's using Birth's per woman rather than birth compared to death rate and net migration rates as that's advantegeous to his arguement, despite the fact that the former are a much clearer indicator of population growth or decline.

France and the UK both have higher birth rates than death rates alone, yet there birth's per woman are significantly below 2.1. And I have no idea what is the cause for this discrepancy. France has 12 births/1000 compared to 9 deaths/1000.
.
However, both Italy and Germany have lower birth rates than death rates, but net imigration is still causing an overall increase in population.

The problem that Europe faces as a whole is an aging population, increased Life expectancy and a static retirement age. People are now retired for a longer period of their life than ever before. To me it seems obvious why social security is strained.

europe isnt america, how does europes problem translate to americas straining social security?

Europe does have it's own social welfare programs. I was refering to those, seeing as I hadn't mentioned the US in that whole post.

Europe does have it's own social welfare programs. I was refering to those, seeing as I hadn't mentioned the US in that whole post.
alright, yeah europe is screwed with or without welfare problems

I'm going to assume you're not from Europe and have a poor working knowledge of its... uh... workings.

What I was trying to say was that a decreasing percentage of the population is paying for an increasing percentage of the population's pensions. The ways to deal with this are
1) Increase taxes
2) Cut back on social welfare
3) Increase the age of retirement.

I'm going to assume you're not from Europe and have a poor working knowledge of its... uh... workings.

What I was trying to say was that a decreasing percentage of the population is paying for an increasing percentage of the population's pensions. The ways to deal with this are
1) Increase taxes
2) Cut back on social welfare
3) Increase the age of retirement.

Or:
increase immigration
policies that encourage people to have children

So as well as being assessed on National insurance contributions for your pension you would also be assessed on National baby contributions.

"Sorry sir, but the computer says you've only contributed 1 child to society. that means you're not eligible for a state pension sir. I suggest you go out and get some random prostitute preganant before applying for your pension again."

>_>

In general, yeah, lower population growth has the west screwed. We could probably offset this by having more open immigration policies, as I bet that many people from India and China would love to live in the US. Europe could go a way towards offsetting this by considering the Turkish and North African immigrants that do all of the work in their countires as actual citizens.

Sounded vaguely racist to me.
It seems most immigrants move to democratic countries for the same reasons most of our ancestors moved to America. Freedom, prosperity and a better life for their children. In a few generations they'll be just part of the population. I don't think democracy is threatened.
Population needs to be reduced. Less competition for resources helps us all. Perhaps when the under developed economies of the world catch up, they will turn towards democracy. Prosperity tends to point them in that direction.

Exit Mundi: A Collection Of End-Of-World Scenarios (http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/exitmundi.htm)

theres stuff like this on there among other things