Well, that's interesting...

[ConCor]

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/Demography.htm

So, insightful warning or a load of bullshit?

[Mr. Peanuts]

I didnt read much as i am quite busy but,

thank god the spanish may be gone first

[a falling tree]

:eek:
That's an insightfull load of bullshit
but true

[bloodzombie]

I don't know if this is true or not.. but I say "so what?"

a slow-down in births is pretty fucking far from extinction. Their main concern would be the economy. When you really look at the big picture of the future and history of the world, does our economy really matter? less people might give the earth a break from what we've been doing to it.

If the economy comes to a grinding halt, unemployment would skyrocket... why does it then say that women would be urged to work? that's BS.. less young people buying stuff, means they send the women home.. they're at home, might as well pop out a couple little ones.

So maybe in 300 years there'll be half as many people on the earth, then they'll start having babies again, and we'll be back to capacity 1000 years later. Nothing to lose sleep over.

[ZeUs!!]

Following from bz's point about less births giving the earth a break, it would actually be a saviour for our planet not its destruction. What have we got to look forward to in our future? Over-population, over-crowding, pollution and the over-use of already scarce resources. If we had less people it would give us a chance to rectify a few problems instead of hurtling down this one way road to destruction

[bloodzombie]

Also if the future us's are smart, when the population goes way down, they'll put together plans for future population expansion and figure out how the earth can accomodate more people. like city planners, but on a global scale.

[ÆNIMA]

First of all, there are no references or sources that the author cites.

Now, I'm just saying this from memory, but I'm sure it could be looked up. A few years ago, a Jewish mathemitician considered the number of people that have lived on Earth since the creation of man (remember, he's Jewish, so civilization's only been around for about 6,000 years), the number of people on the Earth now, and he added a significant number for people that are going to be born. Given this large sum (I don't know, so don't ask) he calculated that all of these people could live, uncomfortably mind you, in an area about the size of Texas.

Take it for what you will.

[Troll King]

There's a hole in his logic that's big enough to make the ozone layer look hermetically sealed. His conclusions are all based on supposed trends in population growth. What he skims over is that trends are just that, trends. He acknowledges that trends in population patterns have changed in the recent past but he neglects to consider that they will change in the near future as well.

[Jerome Scuggs]

"china" nuff said

[lunch3]

Well, isn't that a 'good' thing. We are over populated now. But I'm sure at one point, if our population is declining, which it isn't, it will start increasing when having kids becomes a good and needed thing. We have problems in even the US getting people jobs and the US is the most technically advanced meaning there are more job oppurtunities other than mass labor here, think how much it is a problem in China for instance or poor countries. But I do think birth rate is decreasing, but we are still producing more than those that are dying. Once we reach saturation point in population, maybe 500 billion, diseases will break out when our technology can't handle all these people, but probably before than we will be en route to colonize Mars and the like.

[TelC@t]

Originally posted by bloodzombie
If the economy comes to a grinding halt, unemployment would skyrocket... why does it then say that women would be urged to work? that's BS.. less young people buying stuff, means they send the women home.. they're at home, might as well pop out a couple little ones.

WTF! They send men home at high umployment rate too.

No job --> no $$ --> can't support more kids --> society have less children as a whole.

Women have children mainly because they have motherly instinct, not because they have nothing else to do

[bloodzombie]

Originally posted by TelC@t
WTF! They send men home at high umployment rate too.

No job --> no $$ --> can't support more kids --> society have less children as a whole.

Women have children mainly because they have motherly instinct, not because they have nothing else to do

Yay for militant lesbians!

now that you picked apart what you felt like picking at, and missing the main point, let's go back. The "article" mentioned something about women being pressured to go out and get jobs because of the declining work force instead of staying home.(I don't remember the exact words), and I'm just saying that that wouldn't happen.

And if you don't think that a jobless woman who's husband is at work every day is more likely to want a baby than one with a job, you're insane.

[TelC@t]

Ironically, the couples that have the most children are the ones where both husband and wife are jobless and solely rely on social security payments.

[Brink]

That IS interesting.

[bloodzombie]

Originally posted by TelC@t
Ironically, the couples that have the most children are the ones where both husband and wife are jobless and solely rely on social security payments.

That's because as long as they don't get jobs, the government gives them more money for each kid. They'll actually earn less if they go out and work. it's a great system.