General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFamily Values Agenda Devastating The Planet. What Ever Happened To ZPG/Sustainable Growth?
Granted family values are important and necessary. But the global baby boom is destined to sabotage the planet. Having a family is a good thing. But too much of a good thing is not necessarily the best thing.
Even now we will need more than one earth to sustain our present population. With predictions that we will have over 9 billion people by the end of the century for sure you wonder how the planet will make it.
Right now our younger population has been convince to have as many children as possible. And based on employment trends, sustainable protein production, ocean productivity and other factors the future looks lean or very polluted. And the problem in the Middle East and in South America alone are a sign that we are headed for very troubled times.
And then again it is looking like doing anything about climate change may already be far too late. We are already over the 400 PPM mark. And we are seeing even more absurd and dangerous weather.
What will it take for even the US to come to its senses. Trump and company are determined to send us back to science even before the Middle Ages where superstition and "voodoo" ruled. How are you're humors effecting your health?
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)All three of us.
Everyone else bailed so they could go sit with the cool kids.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Or so I've been told by conservatives. The apocalypse is right around the corner or something like that. Realistically, we need to deal with this problem or we WILL ruin our planet in the long term. Birth control should be free, encouraged and handed out to the citizens of poor countries. Perhaps government programs offering financial rewards to those who abstain for having children. There are no other solutions to this problem. We either halt and reverse population growth or we kill our planet and everybody dies. Somehow we would need to get population down to the 500M-1B mark to live sustainably on Earth.
Part of the problem is our capitalistic system which relies heavily on unlimited population growth to keep things going. That and how our systems like SS/Health insurance/etc rely on a larger base of healthy young people to support the elderly.
At this point I think the only thing capable of saving the world would be if some genius was to create a highly infectious plague that sterilized 95% of those infected.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I'm not in the right forum to say what I really think.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)If the goal was to bring mankind misery and destroy the world.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Demonstrably bullshit.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/health/us-lowest-fertility-rate/
MichMary
(1,714 posts)ALL of the younger generation is multiplying like rabbits.College educated, professional people are having one or two children, and many of them are choosing to be childless.
However, I have worked with people in poverty, and they do tend to begin having children at a younger age, and to have more of them. The problem is that the middle class, which is expected to fund the social safety net, is shrinking, partly because of the income gap, and partly because of demographics. Fewer and fewer people are responsible for taking care of more and more.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The mean age of first-time motherhood is increasing among all racial categories in the US and in all states, teenage motherhood is down 42% from the year 2000.
The national average age of first time motherhood is 26, and the demographic with the youngest average is Native American women, who have their first child at an average age of 23.
For comparison the national average in 1970 was 21 and 24.9 in 2000.
You're suggesting a crisis where there is in fact a success story.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)No elephants, no lions, no gorillas. They will be crowded out or eaten.
We have blown through Malthusian limits. Due to gene drives malaria will be gone in a decade. Unless they reform their culture they will destroy their continent.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)If Malaria is eliminated and they keep breeding at current rates I suspect they'll just run out of food eventually. The question then becomes whether they'll receive food aid so they can continue overpopulating. It really sucks that they'll probably take down the whole ecosystem of the continent with them. They'll probably eat every critter that can be eaten and raze every last tree to the ground as their society collapses. Overpopulation is the #1 threat to the world IMO(even before climate change). Unless it is dealt with somehow we'll destroy the carrying capacity of the Earth for generations. Do humans have what it takes to be smarter than bacteria which multiply until the death of their host(and then the bacteria themselves all die)?
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...of the country with a birth rate low enough to justify shipping in workers, nor will literally ANYTHING they do be able to dent it.
When you have groups with replacement rates of 8 and 10, 1.6 is a joke and our nation is the punchline.
pansypoo53219
(21,009 posts)Igel
(35,390 posts)That the racist conservative Family Values coterie is responsible for making sure that there's a very large rate of increase among black Africans and among Muslims? With Andean Latinos and indigenous plus SE Asians coming in second?
You're blaming the wrong people because they're the ones you probably want to blame for everything possible. In this, though, they have little to say. If we can't name the problem clearly, it can't be dealt with adequately.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwii9-_lr-7TAhUFziYKHdDGBTkQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate&psig=AFQjCNERejCAtfDXCKVzuiAGcu7srnPfAw&ust=1494816551647583
Even the much-vaunted restrictions on family planning clinics in Africa (etc.) don't have the effect most infer. The funding is much less than the demand, and the family planning clinics and agencies are fungible. The last time the funding restrictions went into effect there was great outcry, but the numbers stayed flat: the 20% of clinics that lost funding because they didn't stop counseling or providing abortion services simply had their funding transferred to clinics that didn't and which hadn't been funded before. The family planning services beyond abortion weren't affected. The number of women served didn't decline. It's even unclear if the number of abortions declined.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,412 posts)Lots of figures here: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Fertility/ (and there's a link to a similar page for overall population figures)
From https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/Files/1_Indicators%20%28Standard%29/EXCEL_FILES/2_Fertility/WPP2015_FERT_F07_AGE_SPECIFIC_FERTILITY.XLS , births per 1,000 women for 5 year age groups, starting at 15 (ie 15-19, 20-24, 25-29 etc.):
1950-1955 86.9 235.7 250.4 200.0 138.6 65.1 15.7
2010-2015 46.2 149.3 144.5 94.7 48.1 15.7 3.8
and the figures in between show the drop in each age group, usually from about 1965 (ie when good contraception was becoming available).
So to say "our younger population has been convince to have as many children as possible" is misleading. The younger population is having fewer children, just like everyone has over the past few decades. The total fertility rate for the world has dropped from a peak of 5.02 (1960-65) to 2.51 (2010-15). The medium variant estimate for TFR drops to 2.22 by 2050, and 1.99 by 2095.
Having said that, fewer babies is a good idea, environmentally, everywhere, and thus socially, as long as people can get over the "they're not from here" mistrust. Relevant: "the number one solution is educating girls and family planning"