tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3887611099343215170.post746657097850613581..comments2024-03-08T11:30:06.141-05:00Comments on By Any Other Nerd: Obnoxious Tones in the Childfree DebateLance Eatonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09781437456030157583noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3887611099343215170.post-52216305447505461652013-02-20T20:37:44.811-05:002013-02-20T20:37:44.811-05:00With immigration, is the notion that there will be...With immigration, is the notion that there will be no children to look after an aging population false? And didnt the Germans try to bribe fertility as a way to protect a natural German culture? Quebec does the same thing in Canada.<br /><br />If anything we're going to be screwed because of overpopulation in cities. A promotion of rural lifestyle needs to be done, if anything. Has nothing to do with birth rates.buzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375102498975321528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3887611099343215170.post-22403699133552991592013-02-20T20:23:58.711-05:002013-02-20T20:23:58.711-05:00Hi there,
Thanks for taking the time to read my b...Hi there,<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to read my blog and provide such an indepth response. <br /><br />Thank you for the clarification about fertility. However, I still find it a weak argument or poor choice of words to say that "Postfamilial America is in ascendancy as the fertility rate among women has plummeted, since the 2008 economic crisis and the Great Recession that followed, to its lowest level since reliable numbers were first kept in 1920." After all, if by what you are saying is true--that we're dealing with "lifetime"--then how is measuring 5 years--5 financially tumultuos years at a point in history in which there is much wider and safer access to birth control really an accurate portray and not just playing the fear card?<br /><br />You're right that net births doesn't mean there isn't the chance of declining fertility (if that is in fact as accurate in the US as implied by the article) but there still is ample population being born--that 1000 births in 15 minutes seems proof and burgeoning populations in many other non-Western countries seems proof of that. <br /><br />I agree about population saturation needed in order for there to be a thriving economy--however, if we consider that we've past equilibrium of sustainability of environmental resources, then yes, every person added does deplete much more than contribute because each child represents an intense over-drawing of resources and demands on the system long before it will reasonably contribute or feasibly counteract the demand. <br /><br />Thanks,<br />LanceLance Eatonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781437456030157583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3887611099343215170.post-19069173046906221012013-02-20T20:06:47.538-05:002013-02-20T20:06:47.538-05:00I think you've confused quite a few things her...I think you've confused quite a few things here. For instance you wrote: <br /><br />"By fertility do the authors mean women who are potentially fertile or women who have become pregnant?"<br /><br />Fertility "rate" has a clear meaning in demographic statistics, and it refers to the number of children a woman has in her lifetime. So if on average women have 2 children in their lifetime, the fertility rate is 2. <br /><br />And you continue on to write: <br /><br />"Population decline may be happening in pockets, but the global picture continues to be one of substantial growth. We're 7.1 billion and counting. In the course of visiting the Population Institute website for about 10-15 minutes, it was reported that the population had grown by 1000 net births."<br /><br />Net births does not mean that you wouldn't eventually, if the trend of decling fertility rates continue, see a decline in the world's population. The reason why you can have net births at the moment but simultaneously a declining fertility rate is because older people are simply living longer than they have before. But they will eventually die, and there won’t be enough younger people to replace them at current population numbers, and so you will stop seeing any net births in the numbers if the trend holds. The U.N. itself has predicted that the world's population will top out and hit a ceiling by the year 2050 and then it will start to decline. They base this prediction on the current fertility rates around the world. <br /><br />You also have a misunderstanding of resources. You say that adults who choose to have children are a strain on resources misses the fact that resources are created by the productive effort of human beings. So while they may consume resources as children, they eventually become part of the labor force and start producing resources themselves. In fact the smaller the population, you generally have a less diverse, less robust economy than you would if you have more people in it. Think about a small village in a reomte part of the world, how many resources do the people of that village have? Not very much. You don't have enough people to open a variety of diverse business serving a near infinite amount of niche markets like you would in say New York City. A division of labor, and more of it, which requires more people, makes a for more robust economy and a higher standard of living.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com