Global decline in fertility rates…

4,555 Views | 136 Replies | Last: 22 hrs ago by Redbrickbear
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I started this thread on the paid site but wanted to see if people here had been following this development.

Anyone noticed the global collapse of fertility rates taking place?

For a population to sustain itself it must have an average fertility rate of 2.1 or basically every women having 2 children. This allows a population to sustain itself from one generation to another generation.

----Today in 2022----

Europe: 1.6
North America (above the Rio Grande): 1.8
Asia: 2.2
Latin America (Mex-Central America-South America): 2.3
Oceania: 2.5
Africa: 5.4


https://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-fertility-rate.php



EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder how mortality rates affect the African population where fertility rates are so high.
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Africa needs some tvs in their bedrooms.
Married A Horn

Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Married A Horn said:

Africa needs some tvs in their bedrooms.


Or just more bedrooms.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No one in the USA is having kids….


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
increasing densities of population leads to all kinds of pathologies in the animal kingdom. Why should the human race be immune?
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why must the population sustain itself? Why would it be a bad thing for there to be less people?
BluesBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a message that Bill Gates approves....Happy Dance time....
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The biggest threat facing humanity by the end of the century is a massive population collapse.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

Why must the population sustain itself? Why would it be a bad thing for there to be less people?
In the short term, at the very least, it would probably lead to economic decline and possible economic collapse.

In the nearer long term in would lead to collapse of some nations. South Korea for example (at current fertility rates) would basically go extinct in a few hundred years. Many others are on a similar demographic path.

https://www.businessinsider.com/south-koreans-could-be-extinct-by-2750-2015-6

And in the super long term could lead to the extinction of the whole human race....though that would take thousands of years of low fertility.

But you get the point.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

Why must the population sustain itself? Why would it be a bad thing for there to be less people?
population growth IS the largest part of economic growth. a shrinking population has to develop ever more sophisticated ways of improving productivity to maintain economic growth.

once an economy starts contracting, all kinds of pathologies set in......eventually becoming systemically fatal. How does a city of 800k maintain street, sewer and water infrastructure for a population of 500k?

There is a reason why places like Angkor Wat, et al....were abandoned.......
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

I started this thread on the paid site but wanted to see if people here had been following this development.

Anyone noticed the global collapse of fertility rates taking place?

For a population to sustain itself it must have an average fertility rate of 2.1 or basically every women having 2 children. This allows a population to sustain itself from one generation to another generation.

----Today in 2022----

Europe: 1.6
North America (above the Rio Grande): 1.8
Asia: 2.2
Latin America (Mex-Central America-South America): 2.3
Oceania: 2.5
Africa: 5.4


https://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-by-fertility-rate.php






I think a lot has to do with more and more women not wanting kids or being tricked into waiting too long and then having none
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

contrario said:

Why must the population sustain itself? Why would it be a bad thing for there to be less people?
population growth IS the largest part of economic growth. a shrinking population has to develop ever more sophisticated ways of improving productivity to maintain economic growth.

once an economy starts contracting, all kinds of pathologies set in......eventually becoming systemically fatal. How does a city of 800k maintain street, sewer and water infrastructure for a population of 500k?

There is a reason why places like Angkor Wat, et al....were abandoned.......


Yep….


Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

The biggest threat facing humanity by the end of the century is a massive population collapse.


Human population collapse at some point is inevitable.

Be it from famine , war , pestilence or artificial intelligence.

Max Planck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

The biggest threat facing humanity by the end of the century is a massive population collapse.


Human population collapse at some point is inevitable.

Be it from famine , war , pestilence or artificial intelligence.


Luddites have been saying this for centuries, still waiting for it to come true.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Max Planck said:

Canada2017 said:

Doc Holliday said:

The biggest threat facing humanity by the end of the century is a massive population collapse.


Human population collapse at some point is inevitable.

Be it from famine , war , pestilence or artificial intelligence.


Luddites have been saying this for centuries, still waiting for it to come true.
Good post.

Forced me to look up the term 'Luddites'.

Well, humans are no different than any other animal population. When an ever increasing population expands beyond the ability of resources to sustain it.......starvation results.

Its happened many times throughout the centuries .

In the 20th century horrible famines occurred in India , the Soviet Union , various parts of Africa , and China .

Tens of millions died.

Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The more educated the woman the few children she bears

Hence lower population
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.newgeography.com/content/007528-us-total-fertility-rates-toward-europe

[The highest total fertility rate (TFR) was among Hispanics, at 1.88. But this demographic group also experienced a rapid decline, down 20 percent, from 2.35 in 2010. This drop is particularly significant since the Hispanic TFR was well above the replacement rate in 2010, and was seen as one way to keep the country from more rapid aging and population decline.

The other three major races and ethnicities have total fertility rates below replacement. The African-American Non-Hispanic total fertility rate dropped to 1.71, down 10 percent from the 2010 rate.

Among White-Non Hispanics, the 2020 total fertility rate was 1.55, down 13% from the 2010 rate of 1.79.
The lowest total fertility rate was 1.39 among Asian Non-Hispanics.]
BellCountyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

contrario said:

Why must the population sustain itself? Why would it be a bad thing for there to be less people?
population growth IS the largest part of economic growth. a shrinking population has to develop ever more sophisticated ways of improving productivity to maintain economic growth.

once an economy starts contracting, all kinds of pathologies set in......eventually becoming systemically fatal. How does a city of 800k maintain street, sewer and water infrastructure for a population of 500k?

There is a reason why places like Angkor Wat, et al....were abandoned.......
The majority of baby boomers in this country are not productive anymore and are a drag on the economy. The downside of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.


whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.



sovereign power engages in policies on marriage primarily to foster higher birth rates, secondarily to foster rearing of children & stable families, etc....

What on earth will policies promoting gay marriage, non-traditional family structures, no-fault divorce, etc.....do to help the birth rate and raising of children in stable families?

Is the traditional family an artificial social construct>>>or the end result of thousands of years of social experimentation?

Where is the state interest in using policy to foster anything other than traditional marriage?
Where is the common good in public money being used to subsidize family structure that cannot produce children?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.



sovereign power engages in policies on marriage primarily to foster higher birth rates, secondarily to foster rearing of children & stable families, etc....

What on earth will policies promoting gay marriage, non-traditional family structures, no-fault divorce, etc.....do to help the birth rate and raising of children in stable families?

Is the traditional family an artificial social construct>>>or the end result of thousands of years of social experimentation?

Where is the state interest in using policy to foster anything other than traditional marriage?
Where is the common good in public money being used to subsidize family structure that cannot produce children?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.




At least the low-information wokeys are the ones not reproducing. The Idiocracy could go extinct.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.



sovereign power engages in policies on marriage primarily to foster higher birth rates, secondarily to foster rearing of children & stable families, etc....

What on earth will policies promoting gay marriage, non-traditional family structures, no-fault divorce, etc.....do to help the birth rate and raising of children in stable families?

Is the traditional family an artificial social construct>>>or the end result of thousands of years of social experimentation?

Where is the state interest in using policy to foster anything other than traditional marriage?
Where is the common good in public money being used to subsidize family structure that cannot produce children?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.




At least the low-information wokeys are the ones not reproducing. The Idiocracy could go extinct.


Unfortunately no one is reproducing in the modern industrialized world.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.



sovereign power engages in policies on marriage primarily to foster higher birth rates, secondarily to foster rearing of children & stable families, etc....

What on earth will policies promoting gay marriage, non-traditional family structures, no-fault divorce, etc.....do to help the birth rate and raising of children in stable families?

Is the traditional family an artificial social construct>>>or the end result of thousands of years of social experimentation?

Where is the state interest in using policy to foster anything other than traditional marriage?
Where is the common good in public money being used to subsidize family structure that cannot produce children?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.




At least the low-information wokeys are the ones not reproducing. The Idiocracy could go extinct.
And the irony is, the only solution is to bring migrants across the border by the millions....migrants who won't have time for the queer theory nonsense.

The GOP should open processing centers for all migrants released by ICE. On one side of the room, they should have the alphabet people manning a table to register migrants for Democrat Party in exchange for a new gender. On the other, we should have a table to register migrants for the Republican Party in exchange for a new job.



Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.



sovereign power engages in policies on marriage primarily to foster higher birth rates, secondarily to foster rearing of children & stable families, etc....

What on earth will policies promoting gay marriage, non-traditional family structures, no-fault divorce, etc.....do to help the birth rate and raising of children in stable families?

Is the traditional family an artificial social construct>>>or the end result of thousands of years of social experimentation?

Where is the state interest in using policy to foster anything other than traditional marriage?
Where is the common good in public money being used to subsidize family structure that cannot produce children?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.
I believe education is the highest correlated factor. The more education a woman has, the fewer number of children she bears.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Redbrickbear said:

I am for paid leave…but it is interesting that it does not seem to help.



sovereign power engages in policies on marriage primarily to foster higher birth rates, secondarily to foster rearing of children & stable families, etc....

What on earth will policies promoting gay marriage, non-traditional family structures, no-fault divorce, etc.....do to help the birth rate and raising of children in stable families?

Is the traditional family an artificial social construct>>>or the end result of thousands of years of social experimentation?

Where is the state interest in using policy to foster anything other than traditional marriage?
Where is the common good in public money being used to subsidize family structure that cannot produce children?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.
I believe education is the highest correlated factor. The more education a woman has, the fewer number of children she bears.


Yes that is one reason.

But strangely enough tv ownership also has a strong correlation with lower fertility rates.

For instance as soon as the mass ownership of tvs became a thing in Brazil the fertility rate there began to collapse.



Limited IQ Redneck in PU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have already done my part. Too many low T males swishing around. If the situation calls for it I can step up to the plate. Good thing i have a rigid practice schedule.
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

I have alreasy done my part. Too many low T males swishing around. I the situation calls for i can step up to the plate. Good think i have a rigid practice schedule.


Morning after exchange in the Paramount+ show "Tulsa King" between Dwight Manfredi (Sylvester Stallone) and the hot cougar mom type he brought home from a bar;

(chick asks)
"How old are you?"
"I was a junior in High School when Kennedy was assassinated."
"…So that makes you….?"
"…75…"
"Oh dear God! I thought you were a hard 55."
"We'll, hard is the operative word, isn't it?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Poland (once one for the higher birth rate countries in Europe) now on the verge of demographic crisis.


ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I suspected there would be a drop in the birth rates after I retired as a gigolo.....I just didn't know it would be this bad.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABC BEAR said:

I suspected there would be a drop in the birth rates after I retired as a gigolo.....I just didn't know it would be this bad.


You need to get to Cuba quick…


Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
contrario said:

Why must the population sustain itself? Why would it be a bad thing for there to be less people?


There won't be less people. There will be less intelligent people.
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

ABC BEAR said:

I suspected there would be a drop in the birth rates after I retired as a gigolo.....I just didn't know it would be this bad.


You need to get to Cuba quick…



The next time a group of celebrities goes to Havana to lay a wreath on Fidel's grave, I may tag along as a baggage handler.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.