Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

Here are some interesting stats on population that shows the population explosion of the past is pretty much over.

The global fertility rate has been decreasing for decades. Anything less than 2.33 births per woman would see the global population decreasing. This number of 2.33 changes of course depending on technological advances, disease, world wars, etc. Obviously men don't give birth so you need at least 2 births per woman to replace the existing stock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Years                TFR
1950–1955     4.95
1955–1960     4.89
1960–1965     4.91
1965–1970     4.85
1970–1975     4.45
1975–1980     3.84
1980–1985     3.59
1985–1990     3.39
1990–1995     3.04
1995–2000     2.79
2000–2005     2.62
2005–2010     2.52
2010–2015     2.36

Stats per country.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html

 

Four times as many people having half as many kids - so you still end up with as many people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Errol said:

Yes, but luckily what happens in Africa is nothing to do with us. If they choose to breed themselves into oblivion, and then starve that is entirely their choice. Nature will sort it out. They will starve or die from disease if they continue breeding at such rates.

Europe and the West just needs walls in place with troops to stop the migrants from getting in to our countries. Perfectly possible to do this - you just need to be prepared to break eggs.

See the trouble with that is what with the internet and people traffickers and western union money transfers and 10 direct flights from Lagos a day and a completely connected world where people don't stay where they're told anymore...is that a problem in one part of the world is a problem for every part of the world.

Call me crazy but I'd far rather women obtain an education and have some lovely free contraception available when they want it (the Botswana method). Like lots of little rubbery personalised walls instead of some sort of gigantic money-eating one covered in frickin laser beams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

Four times as many people having half as many kids - so you still end up with as many people?

Not quite

1950

2,556,000,053 * 4.95 /2 = 6.3 Billion

2018

7,530,000,000 * 2.36  /2 = 8.88 Billion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

Four times as many people having half as many kids - so you still end up with as many people?

Possibly, although I think you need a rate of 2.33 rather than 2 to keep the population constant. Not exactly sure why but maybe because stats is never straightforward.

I'm guessing if the fertility rate dropped to 1 then the world population would half every 70 or so years, maybe quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's to do with the fact that more males than females are born. Also some of those born die in childhood (which I've read is one of the reasons, amongst others, for large families in poorer countries).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

Possibly, although I think you need a rate of 2.33 rather than 2 to keep the population constant. Not exactly sure why but maybe because stats is never straightforward.

Each women has to have at least 2.33 on average because some children will be naturally infertile, some won't survive to reproductive age and some will chose to remain childless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shep said:

It's to do with the fact that more males than females are born. Also some of those born die in childhood (which I've read is one of the reasons, amongst others, for large families in poorer countries).

I understand that there are always more women than men on the planet because young men have a far higher death rate than young women. When a war breaks out, it's men that do all the fighting. Men are far more likely to take their own life, men are natural risk takers so they are more likely to die in a car accident. Men are more likely to consume alcohol and drugs to excess. Men dominate dangerous jobs in industry and do almost all of the outside work, construction, fishing and so on. These jobs also tend to be the most dangerous.

Edited by Uncle_Kenny
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

Why would anyone with half a brain want to create more wage slaves who will just be used up and abused by our bent capitalist system?

 

For the benefits innit

(Especially if they can successfully get the kid diagnosed as ''SEN'' or ''OTS'' which seems pretty easy to do these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual report is freely available here : https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32278-5/fulltext

1) There are actually more male humans than females now, due to major selection for boys mainly in india and china. Normally, there are slightly more male births but females live longer. 

"Another dimension of the global population is the proportion of the population that is female, which decreased from 50·1% to 49·8% over the 67-year period."

"Sex ratios in most countries remain in the narrow band of 1·03–1·07 male livebirths for every female livebirth. We found in some countries, most notably India and China, that since the availability of ultrasonography in the early 1980s, the ratio of males to females has increased. In China, the sex ratios in 2017 were in excess of 1·16 males for every female. These ratios imply very substantial sex-selective abortion and even the possibility of female infanticide. "

2) The replacement rate is normally somewhere below 2.1 (this work says 2.05), assuming low child mortality:

"Even when countries have a TFR of less than the replacement value (the TFR at which a population replaces itself from generation to generation, assuming no migration; generally estimated to be 2·05), populations can continue to grow because of population momentum: the phenomenon by which the past growth of birth cohorts leads to more women of childbearing age and increased births relative to deaths, even though the TFR for a time period is less than the replacement value."

3) It is well established over decades that three factors are most important in reducing high fertility rates: 

"An important debate in the medical literature about the decreases in fertility has been regarding the relative contribution of declines in the under-5 mortality rate, women's educational attainment, and the availability of reproductive health services, particularly modern contraception methods.

 There is a strong correlation between estimated TFR and maternal education (r=–0·886), the met contraceptive need (r=–0·799), and the under-5 mortality rate (r=0·800), which are consistent over decades and across SDI quintiles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shep said:

It's to do with the fact that more males than females are born. Also some of those born die in childhood (which I've read is one of the reasons, amongst others, for large families in poorer countries).

I think nature designed it that way, as males have a habit of getting killed through out history especially in wars and hunting. Whereas women were generally treated like chattels, captured and raped to get them pregnant.

No room for cowards and #metoo in the Trojan Wars.

 

Edited by Mikhail Liebenstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncle_Kenny said:

Each women has to have at least 2.33 on average because some children will be naturally infertile, some won't survive to reproductive age and some will chose to remain childless.

Then they bring the average down anyway, so that wouldn't account to it. Two women born, one has four children, the other none, average is still 2, population is still static. It doesn't  really matter if the woman who didn't have any children didn't because she didn't live long enough to do so or simply chose not to.*

I think I've read that it isn't exactly 50-50 boys and girls born though, and if there is a tendency for men to be more likely to be killed as someone mentioned upthread that'll change the numbers a little.

* not 100% TBH, populations will go up if the birth rate remains at replacements but lifespans increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experts have been saying this for a decades (I mist admit I never really believed it). If there's anything surprising it must be that the decline in fertility is continuing rather than levelling of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:

The experts have been saying this for a decades (I mist admit I never really believed it). If there's anything surprising it must be that the decline in fertility is continuing rather than levelling of.

Looking around the UK it doesn't strike me as all that surprising although which factors are repeated in other countries with a reducing rate I couldn't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncle_Kenny said:

I understand that there are always more women than men on the planet because young men have a far higher death rate than young women. When a war breaks out, it's men that do all the fighting. Men are far more likely to take their own life, men are natural risk takers so they are more likely to die in a car accident. Men are more likely to consume alcohol and drugs to excess. Men dominate dangerous jobs in industry and do almost all of the outside work, construction, fishing and so on. These jobs also tend to be the most dangerous.

When will men get equality??!!

In this year that we celebrate women getting the vote a century ago its been completely ignored that prior to 1918 40% of men didnt have the vote either - as it only applied to property owners and/or heads of households. Many of those young men in the trenches had no voting rights either.

In the end it wasn't the Suffragettes smashing a few windows or holding demos that got women the vote - it was the nearly 1 million young men who died in the trenches and the countless more who were maimed that did - along of course with all those working class women who worked in factories and ran the transport system. Cos if we had lost the war there might well have been  no democratic elections for women to vote in! Yet the role of WWI gets ignored - and we have the right on types thinking the vote was won by smashing a few windows?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2018 at 15:12, Quicken said:

39688212_401.png

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

4 Recommended actions from the article above (just relating to climate change, not ecological destruction/collapse): having one fewer child, living car free, avoiding air travel, and eating a plant-based diet

If you consider ecological collapse (biodiversity, extinctions, resource depletion), then the plant-based diet becomes much more important as outined in this vast and vital study recently published in Science:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile the Government thinks installing smart meters will make all the difference. :rolleyes:

An excellent point, but an inconvenient truth for the bulk of people held to ransom by their own biological drives and the overwhelming weight of social norms and expectation. Even as someone who, for both personal and practical reasons, is firmly committed to never having kids I still look at other childless couples of my age and wonder what's wrong with them..

On 09/11/2018 at 15:37, The Spaniard said:

A possible contributory factor - sperm counts have declined and continue to go lower:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-continue-to-fall/572794/

 

 

On 09/11/2018 at 13:05, Tes Tickle said:

I couldn't help laughing at the linked story from that one...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43990184

Regular fast food eating linked to fertility issues in women

There are all kinds of fancy theories proposed for the link between the two, while not even considering the possibility that perhaps it's as simple as fat birds are less likely to get any action, either through desire or capability.

Natural self-regulation in action, innit? We've corrupted ourselves with such unhealthy and unnatural lifestyles that they're starting to inhibit our ability to procreate and thus filter the dregs out of the ongoing gene pool.

On 09/11/2018 at 13:02, Riedquat said:

I couldn't agree more. Declining populations are the best thing possible for most countries, and a very large proportion of the issues the world faces are down to too many people. It's utter madness to talk about it in terms of negatives. It's true that society will need to change to handle the decline and not all of those changes are something people will necessarily want (in the same way as people don't want to live within their means but would prefer to keep borrowing money they don't have), and too rapid a decline will cause problems, but the negative portrayal in that article is the sign of a complete and utter idiot.

Absolutely. It saddens me that this mindset is still so unquestionably prevalent, despite the perpetual stream of evidence that we're marching towards self-destruction in continuing to reproduce unchecked. 

Sadly it seems that collectively as a race we're simply not mature or pragmatic enough to attempt to address, or even acknowledge that there's a problem at all, for the most part.

Edited by ftb_fml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncle_Kenny said:

Each women has to have at least 2.33 on average because some children will be naturally infertile, some won't survive to reproductive age and some will chose to remain childless.

Many parts of the world have fewer women than men due to the preference for boys and abortion of girls...in some states in India it is around 8 women for 10 men. This happens in china too. This will distort the stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another take on this issue....high house prices keep families together because they can't afford to split. Separation is again only for the wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just  a few additional theories on the fall of fertility:

Higher education:

- delays child birth by a few years

- if children are eventually born, it may reduce the number of them as the first one was later

- may result in women aiming for a career rather than a child so that the education isn't wasted (even if it was a degree in psychology)

- if students study and subsequently work away from home, pressure from their parents to have children ASAP is reduced

- delay also allows to analyse whether an immediate child is needed

Information / Media

- Less need to have someone around all the time as everyone is so connected anyway

- May result in standards for a potential partner being set way too high

And the most important one:

- Excessive cycling reduces sperm count

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2018 at 15:12, Quicken said:

39688212_401.png

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987

“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Shame he didn't look at the graph. The vegan diet is only half-way along! Demonstrably NOT the single biggest way to reduce impact. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   219 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.