Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1humouress
Not a literary question, but one that's been niggling me for a long time.
Governments are always worrying about falling birth rates in the developed world, because the population won't renew itself. Personally, I'm thinking - isn't that a good thing?
I know that the current working population has to finance the current retired population (never heard of a piggy bank, then?), and especially in the case of baby boomers, the second is larger than the first, apparently.
But: the resources of the world are finite and already over-burdened.
Humanity is either covering or burning or otherwise destroying the environment which supports us.
Hundreds of species become extinct every day, mainly caused by man.
Shouldn't we be encouraging this reduction in populations, ESPECIALLY in developed countries, which (presumably) have attained comfortable standards of living?
I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly, but can someone please explain it to me?
ETA: sorry, thought I'd move this to the Pro and Con group, since that seems to be better for discussion:
http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=88331
Governments are always worrying about falling birth rates in the developed world, because the population won't renew itself. Personally, I'm thinking - isn't that a good thing?
I know that the current working population has to finance the current retired population (never heard of a piggy bank, then?), and especially in the case of baby boomers, the second is larger than the first, apparently.
But: the resources of the world are finite and already over-burdened.
Humanity is either covering or burning or otherwise destroying the environment which supports us.
Hundreds of species become extinct every day, mainly caused by man.
Shouldn't we be encouraging this reduction in populations, ESPECIALLY in developed countries, which (presumably) have attained comfortable standards of living?
I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly, but can someone please explain it to me?
ETA: sorry, thought I'd move this to the Pro and Con group, since that seems to be better for discussion:
http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=88331
2Anastasia169
Well, I'm happy enough for the topic to be here. Besides the fact that there won't be enough working people to support those that are no longer able to work, people who are worried about population decline in the Western World (as this is the place where the decline exists) are really worried about white and European population decline. It is a demographic worry as well - as in white people mayn't be in charge anymore. Though I agree with you that if the environmental degradation continues, it may not matter who is in charge of the whole damn catastrophe.
Can anyone think of any alternative explanations? And to give disclosure and disclaimer - I am white and have read the worries about demographics and they struck me as veiled racism.
Can anyone think of any alternative explanations? And to give disclosure and disclaimer - I am white and have read the worries about demographics and they struck me as veiled racism.
3geneg
The decline in birth rates is not related to white or non-white, but to education and opportunities outside the home for women. The social acceptance of women in the work force allows women to escape the marriage/baby trap. Women have more options in the west than they did prior to WWII. The last generation to be raised by predominantly stay at home mothers was the baby boom. One reason why there are so many of them. Once the baby boom has worked its way through the system problems associated with this imbalance will resolve themselves.
The problem is paradoxical: we value education and opportunity, but if we are going to valorize those things, we should expect declines in birth rates. After all, it doesn't require an education or a job to birth babies. In fact this may be a survival strategy for the long term. Or not.
The problem is paradoxical: we value education and opportunity, but if we are going to valorize those things, we should expect declines in birth rates. After all, it doesn't require an education or a job to birth babies. In fact this may be a survival strategy for the long term. Or not.
4humouress
Ah - so I'm right, am I? My arguments didn't make any impact on my husband, so we never managed to debate it.
I was thinking myself that it's the baby boomers that governments seem to worry about supporting, but having more babies now to pay taxes to pay for the baby boomers in retirement would just create another baby boom generation, and we'll have the same problem again in the future.
Being a Darwinist, I assume that the goal of any species is survival (to simplify things), and the continuation of the species. In ages past, humans had so many children because not all of them would survive. Now, with the advance of medical technologies, that isn't necessary, and with the higher levels of education, people should see that; plus, it doesn't look like the Earth can sustain the current (let alone increased) level of humanity, and realistically, we're not going to go to Mars in huge numbers any time soon. So, in the interests of survival, at least of the human race, shouldn't we actively be encouraging a reduction in birth rates?
I was thinking myself that it's the baby boomers that governments seem to worry about supporting, but having more babies now to pay taxes to pay for the baby boomers in retirement would just create another baby boom generation, and we'll have the same problem again in the future.
Being a Darwinist, I assume that the goal of any species is survival (to simplify things), and the continuation of the species. In ages past, humans had so many children because not all of them would survive. Now, with the advance of medical technologies, that isn't necessary, and with the higher levels of education, people should see that; plus, it doesn't look like the Earth can sustain the current (let alone increased) level of humanity, and realistically, we're not going to go to Mars in huge numbers any time soon. So, in the interests of survival, at least of the human race, shouldn't we actively be encouraging a reduction in birth rates?
5MarianV
Didn't they do some experimenting a while back on overcrowding? They put some monkeys in cages, then added a few more & when they reached the point where each animal's personal space was shrunk to a small size, the animals became aggressive and turned on each other, killing and cannibalizing until some cages were empty.
I think a couple of SF books were written that were influenced by those experiments.
The urge to reproduce is in our genes, like it or not. It's true that the people complaining about the population loss in Europe are more concerned about the "white" population. If the whites become a minority, that will not delay the fate of an over-populated earth. Think of all the species that have gone extinct since the beginning of creation - are we that special?
I think a couple of SF books were written that were influenced by those experiments.
The urge to reproduce is in our genes, like it or not. It's true that the people complaining about the population loss in Europe are more concerned about the "white" population. If the whites become a minority, that will not delay the fate of an over-populated earth. Think of all the species that have gone extinct since the beginning of creation - are we that special?
