Population Decline

[All-American]

I disagree. Our kids generation is so self absorbed that they will just cut the programs and impose mandatory death ages on old people like the planet in an episode of Star Trek TNG. So we will be suffering about 20 years from now, or at least dead.

I saw something on CNN today that said NASA found an asteroid that might hit the earth in 2046. I thought, finally, some good news.

[fusnik]

Population decline is a problem when you need large percentages of the populace to do physical things.

We are 20 years from Ready Player 1 without the stacks. Color me not considered. Like most things some smart person that is 5-10 will change the world in the next 10 years and it won’t be a major concern.

There’s plenty of resources as well to cover legacy costs of senior citizens if we really care about solving the problem.

[RC Vikings]

Population decline is a problem when you need large percentages of the populace to do physical things.

We are 20 years from Ready Player 1 without the stacks. Color me not considered. Like most things some smart person that is 5-10 will change the world in the next 10 years and it won’t be a major concern.

There’s plenty of resources as well to cover legacy costs of senior citizens if we really care about solving the problem.

Will we need the influx of people from Mexico to make up the difference.

[All-American]

Population decline is a problem when you need large percentages of the populace to do physical things.

We are 20 years from Ready Player 1 without the stacks. Color me not considered. Like most things some smart person that is 5-10 will change the world in the next 10 years and it won’t be a major concern.

There’s plenty of resources as well to cover legacy costs of senior citizens if we really care about solving the problem.

The bolded part is the concern.

We care more about showing why the other political party is responsible for the problem than we are in solving the problem.

[Non Sequitur]

Says the most pessimistic, misanthropic person I know.

The only way to solve the most pressing issues we face (energy, environment, sustainability, etc) is with scientific and technological advancements. And this is only done in countries with advanced economies. Those very same countries are experiencing or facing demographic collapse and the potential impact on world economies will be severe. And of course, third world countries will suffer too - probably the most.

And I don't even practice.

[smokymountainrain]

I saw something on CNN today that said NASA found an asteroid that might hit the earth in 2046. I thought, finally, some good news.

quick death, won't have to work anymore. win/win

[tooblue]

This community’s quarter century without a newborn shows the scale of Japan’s population crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/17/asia/...dst/index.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

Embedded Tweet

[Bo Diddley]

Clay Travis is a dummy, but he is right about this:

I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusion, but the data is more complex wrt marriage and bearing children. In 1980, 18% of children were born out of wedlock, but now 41% are born out of wedlock. So I think he misses the mark with the marriage rate of 40+.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusion, but the data is more complex wrt marriage and bearing children. In 1980, 18% of children were born out of wedlock, but now 41% are born out of wedlock. So I think he misses the mark with the marriage rate of 40+.

Birth rates are dropping like a rock. Dropping marriage rates aren't necessarily the primary cause of this, but it is related. And certainly not a good thing either way.

[smokymountainrain]

i read cougarboard and cougarstadium during the day - two groups that are overwhelmingly conservative. when it comes to population decline it seems like it's a concern not shared by liberals or at the very least if it is shared by liberals, it seems to be largely ignored by that side. any thoughts as to why that may be? if it's not a concern (which is how it seems to me), why not? what are the counter arguments? i'd be interested to hear from some of the more liberal folks on this - NWC, Frank Ryan, etc.

i get the feeling the root of the issue is the importance the right places traditional family vs the importance the left places on folks feeling comfortable and accepted for non-traditional families/relationships. hence i wonder to what extent the right blows it out of proportion and to what extent the left need to pull their heads out.

[Bo Diddley]

Birth rates are dropping like a rock. Dropping marriage rates aren't necessarily the primary cause of this, but it is related. And certainly not a good thing either way.

I don't disagree that it's a contributing factor, but as we're talking about statistics over time, marriage is becoming much less correlated with fertility than it once was. I'm saying he's highlighting the wrong stat to support his conclusion. As you say, birthrates are dropping like a rock.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't disagree that it's a contributing factor, but as we're talking about statistics over time, marriage is becoming much less correlated with fertility than it once was. I'm saying he's highlighting the wrong stat to support his conclusion. As you say, birthrates are dropping like a rock.

Research does not support your position.

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/6/23...y-byu-wheatley

As nations worldwide confront falling fertility, they often ignore what’s happening to marriage patterns on the theory that marriage and births are no longer wed. Worldwide, the number of births to unmarried mothers has been rising.

But a new report from the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University argues that it’s impossible to promote fertility effectively without also promoting marriage.

The report finds that worldwide, marriage “dramatically” raises the likelihood a woman will have a baby. Marital births are even better predictors of fertility than nonmarital births, the report says.

According to the research, ignoring marital status as significant to fertility rates is not constructive because they are so connected “that it is virtually impossible to promote marriage or fertility alone without also influencing the other.”

Stone said the linkage remains as strong statistically as ever.

[Joe Public]

At least the population collapse should help with the climate change.

[Northwestcoug]

i read cougarboard and cougarstadium during the day - two groups that are overwhelmingly conservative. when it comes to population decline it seems like it's a concern not shared by liberals or at the very least if it is shared by liberals, it seems to be largely ignored by that side. any thoughts as to why that may be? if it's not a concern (which is how it seems to me), why not? what are the counter arguments? i'd be interested to hear from some of the more liberal folks on this - NWC, Frank Ryan, etc.

i get the feeling the root of the issue is the importance the right places traditional family vs the importance the left places on folks feeling comfortable and accepted for non-traditional families/relationships. hence i wonder to what extent the right blows it out of proportion and to what extent the left need to pull their heads out.

It warms the cockles of my bleeding heart that I was the first liberal you thought of

Anyways, yeah population decline is a problem. Like Whitney Houston I believe that children are our future. We have transitioned into a society where kids aren't viewed as farm labor anymore. That doesn't mean they aren't critical for the future of society. But this decline will continue as more nations become less poor. I doubt that without much government intervention the birthrate is going to increase appreciably.

I've had some experience with Canadian government intervention. Their birthrate has been lower than the US's for quite some time, and even during Mrs. NWC's infancy tax laws were very generous to encourage childbirth. When we lived in Quebec we were the beneficiaries of both federal and provincial payoffs . Having said all that, I've no idea if these incentives have changed the birth rate much over there.

The other side of the equation is immigration, which Canada heavily relies on. At some point the US is going to need to encourage more immigration or we'll see a continued decline in population growth.

This isn't all one-sided. Having less children does help mother earth like JP said. But there needs to be some growth to keep society afloat.