...like it's a bad omen or life-threatening trend?

I mean isn't that a GOOD thing for Planet Earth and ultimately for future generations???

I'm no bonafide tree-hugger or anything but can't anyone with a functioning brain-stem realize that maybe...just maybe...there's plenty of us humans around to wreak havoc on the planet as is?

Or so it seems to me...

I have been thinking these kinds of thoughts since I was in elementary school...and though I've never learned the exact definition of a tree-hugger, I probably qualify ;) .

Right on, BeenThereDunnThatExMo!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2018 02:13AM by Tevai.

At least the inbred polygamous sects are doing their part to multiply and replenish the Earth. Genetic defects, anyone?

What bugs me is when they said that "fertility" is declining. Fertility is not declining. People are simply deciding not to have so many kids, mainly because life has gotten too expensive and depressing.

I myself have no children. I wanted them, but they weren't in the cards for me. Now that I'm six days from turning 46, I'm kind of glad I didn't foist this existence on an innocent child.

Exactly. Fertility is not declining, people are deciding to delay having children because they don't want others to support those children. I'm one of those who never had children because it meant I could completely cut my abusive TBM ex-husband out of my life, and at times, I couldn't have supported them without assistance. There are plenty of Mormons who aren't part of polygamist sects who show that fertility is not declining, as they still have children at a relatively young age. While many in their early 20's are focusing on getting established in careers after college, Mormons are starting families often before they've been home from their mission for a year.

This article is interesting: https://unherd.com/2018/06/amish-shakers-can-teach-us-demographics/?=refinnar

Something about the low birth rates of secular people depresses me. It would seem the religious will always out-reproduce us. If this is so, then secular communities don't exist for very long except as they continually siphon off the religious. Which is easy enough, I guess, especially in the digital age.

The population of a nation should probably at least maintain itself so it doesn't shrivel away — it requires a birth rate of 2.1 per female. If we won't do it, then we will shrink and other peoples that take reproduction much more seriously (usually the religious) will move in and outcompete us. It's unlikely that we overcome our tribalism enough to agree to shrivel at the same time. Nations are going to compete with each other throughout the 21st century. We're already seeing that happen.

Earth can only handle so much of us at once though. It would be a damn shame if humanity just stopped and a day came where there was found no man in the earth. No life on earth has ever had brains as big or complex as ours. We are a way for the universe to know itself. There has to be a balance. There has been as few as 10,000 of us at one time, and now we're testing the upper limit of how many earth can sustain. We're stressing it to the breaking point, but we're not quite there yet.

Go to Gilead and Aunt Lydia will explain it to you.

Good for the planet, bad for the economy.

If you care more about the planet than the human race, it's a good thing.

If you care more about the human race than the planet, it's a bad thing.

I'm in the latter camp. The earth will be destroyed whether we like it or not. Nothing we can do about it. It's shelf life is another few billion years and then poof.

Humanity, on the other hand, does not necessarily have a shelf life. We could go on evolving on other planets indefinitely.

In the meantime, of course, it would be good to figure out how to maintain a stable economy and not prematurely do irreparable damage to the planet.

I have to admit that it bugs me when people say they're not going to have children "because it's bad for the planet" or "I'm just too busy" or "I don't want to raise a child in such a terrible economy/society/environmental nightmare; I picture folks in their 20's and 30's sitting at their corner cafe sipping coffee before they attend the art exhibit not having anyone to look after them when they get old. I think many people are too smart by half, not realizing that if they are conscientious enough to know about living responsibly, they could have a couple kids who will make the world a better place.

Instead, they want to "enjoy life", and in a way, kill off their own family tree. Europe is running out of Europeans. Japan is running out of Japanese.

OTOH, I don't really mind hearing about big families who produce a couple of doctors, a park ranger, a teacher, and maybe a craftsman of some kind.

OK, rambling rant over--I'm off to sip my coffee at the cafe.

Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to admit that it bugs me when people say
> they're not going to have children "because it's
> bad for the planet" or "I'm just too busy" or "I
> don't want to raise a child in such a terrible
> economy/society/environmental nightmare; I picture
> folks in their 20's and 30's sitting at their
> corner cafe sipping coffee before they attend the
> art exhibit not having anyone to look after them
> when they get old. I think many people are too
> smart by half, not realizing that if they are
> conscientious enough to know about living
> responsibly, they could have a couple kids who
> will make the world a better place.

There are no guarantees in life. Folks who have kids aren't necessarily going to have kids who will be around or interested to look after them when they are old. Seems like a selfish, piss poor reason to have kids.

> Instead, they want to "enjoy life", and in a
> way, kill off their own family tree. Europe is
> running out of Europeans. Japan is running out of
> Japanese.

Not everyone should reproduce. For every great parent out there, there is at least one extremely lousy parent. Better to realize you would rather be "enjoying life" as you put it, then end up being a parent who doesn't really care or be involved in their kids' lives, but hey, they kept that family tree "alive" so to speak.

> OTOH, I don't really mind hearing about big
> families who produce a couple of doctors, a park
> ranger, a teacher, and maybe a craftsman of some
> kind.

There is often a lot of emotional neglect in these big families you hear about if only because there aren't enough hours in a day for parents to adequately raise tons of kids, which is why you also hear of older siblings essentially raising the younger siblings in these big families.

> OK, rambling rant over--I'm off to sip my coffee
> at the cafe.

sharapata Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have to admit that it bugs me when people say
> > they're not going to have children "because
> it's
> > bad for the planet" or "I'm just too busy" or
> "I
> > don't want to raise a child in such a terrible
> > economy/society/environmental nightmare; I
> picture
> > folks in their 20's and 30's sitting at their
> > corner cafe sipping coffee before they attend
> the
> > art exhibit not having anyone to look after
> them
> > when they get old. I think many people are too
> > smart by half, not realizing that if they are
> > conscientious enough to know about living
> > responsibly, they could have a couple kids who
> > will make the world a better place.
>
> There are no guarantees in life. Folks who have
> kids aren't necessarily going to have kids who
> will be around or interested to look after them
> when they are old. Seems like a selfish, piss
> poor reason to have kids.
>
> > Instead, they want to "enjoy life", and in a
> > way, kill off their own family tree. Europe is
> > running out of Europeans. Japan is running out
> of
> > Japanese.
>
> Not everyone should reproduce. For every great
> parent out there, there is at least one extremely
> lousy parent. Better to realize you would rather
> be "enjoying life" as you put it, then end up
> being a parent who doesn't really care or be
> involved in their kids' lives, but hey, they kept
> that family tree "alive" so to speak.
>
> > OTOH, I don't really mind hearing about big
> > families who produce a couple of doctors, a
> park
> > ranger, a teacher, and maybe a craftsman of
> some
> > kind.
>
> There is often a lot of emotional neglect in these
> big families you hear about if only because there
> aren't enough hours in a day for parents to
> adequately raise tons of kids, which is why you
> also hear of older siblings essentially raising
> the younger siblings in these big families.
>
> > OK, rambling rant over--I'm off to sip my
> coffee
> > at the cafe.

Brilliant response. It's selfish to have children simply so you'll have a potential caretaker when you're old. I have often wished my mom hadn't bothered having me. She wasn't into being a mother and repeatedly told me she hadn't wanted me. If she hadn't had me, I would have had to hear that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2018 09:27AM by knotheadusc.

knotheadusc Wrote:
-------------------------------------
> I have often wished my mom hadn't
> bothered having me. She wasn't into being a
> mother and repeatedly told me she hadn't wanted
> me. If she hadn't had me, I would have had to
> hear that.


Then you'd just have a different mother with different issues and circumstances to deal with.

Fertility rates are strongly affected by two things: wealth and education, particularly the education of young women. If one wants to help the planet (as well as reducing poverty, extremism, and other problems), focus on girls' education.

If you are worried about the higher fertility rates in poorer parts of the world, then encourage better schooling and faster economic growth there. Ultimately every country that experiences those things sees its rate of reproduction slow significantly.

Yes, a declining fertility rate does create economic problems, sometimes very serious ones. That means that the rate of decline must be managed both within a country and globally. This also has well-understood implications for immigration policy, as the case of Japan indicates.

I understand that. I also understand that it's bad for children to have too many siblings and bad for society the environment.

I suggest taking a tone of helpfulness and give and take, not a dictatorial tone including words like "Prey tell . . ."

Pray simply means to ask. It is usually only used in a religious context now, but it used to be a general alternative word for "ask". "Pray tell" literally means "I ask you to tell me...". It is archaic, and a little pedantic, but it is not in the least dictatorial.

The continuing potential for human beings being seen as commodities, or so I am told.

With the "one child" law in China, many females babies are killed off, or if they are fortunate adopted into other countries.

What happens when all the male babies grow up and want mates?????

Being a female puts a big price on your head.

People should have kids because they sincerely want them and are willing to commit the time, energy, and resources it takes to raise them -- not because the fertility rate is lower, not because the Church tells them to do so, not because they want caretakers in their old age, and not for the glorification of their own ego (i.e., keeping their family tree "alive").

I am surprised in this country that people can't understand why women are having less children. We are one of the few developed countries in the world that doesn't have universal health care and paid maternity leave. Women are paid less to begin with and have a difficult time ever making up for it if they take time to raise their children. Those in power scratch their heads wondering why we're having less children, but by their policies they have shown to only have interest in reproduction until the infant leaves the womb.

One and done.

Birth rates are falling in Europe, too, and most of those countries do have universal healthcare and paid maternity leave and well as numerous other social benefits.

Stop asking hard questions. ;-)

Where's WestBerkeleyFlats, our resident demographer?

Are men innocent victims of women's selfishness?

Only women carry children--at great cost and peril to their health.

Only women breastfeed.

How many men do even close to half of the childcare let alone all of the other increased household chores?

There may be a shortage of willing mothers. There is also a shortage of willing fathers--the ones that do more than impregnate.

People who don't think it's a problem tend not to write articles about it.

Come on. You've all seen the movie, Idiocracy, right?

which entails increasing population, among other things. Without consumers to soak up increasing production, the economy crashes. But as the economist Kenneth Boulding observed: "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

We're-running-up-against-a-lot-of-limits-ly yrs,

S

I believe a super volcano or some other natural catastrophic event will address the situation when there gets to be too many people.

There is evidence that there has been civilizations as advanced as we are now but no longer exist. Same goes for large populations that have disappeared.

Mother Nature operates on her own rules and on her own good time.