The answer to declining birth rates

the answer to declining birth rates: no abortion.

But that would be no answer at all, as those babies would be born into homes in which they aren't wanted, and perhaps can't be provided for.

I think this belongs in the abortion thread, though.

- Scarlet.

 

The issue was declining birth rates, not the after effects. My comment still stands.

Another reason there might be less births is less marriages, and that less marriages are successful. Generally, unmarried people don't want to have kids.

 

meh

I don't really care about the birth rate, I'd just like to see those poverty stricken young girls get an opportunity to make some serious money

 

I did a double-take when I saw the topic of this thread. You're making proposals to increase the human population? It may be that there are a few countries whose population is now slightly shrinking, but the population of humans as a whole is still growing exponentially. Our numbers are already far too bloated for our own good, and if we don't find a way to control our own population, nature will at some point send us a pestilence or natural disaster to control it for us.

 

Well, perhaps the title should be amended to speak about those nations whose birth rates have fallen below the replacement level. The fact remains that in Europe and Japan, the birth rate has dipped so low that their populations are set to shrink and age dramatically in the next 50 years. While this is not a problem in terms of resource consumption, etc, it will make sustaining society and government as we know it in those countries extremely difficult. The Social Welfare state will put a huge burden on the small younger generation, in order to provide for the elderly.

Since that is the true problem, the obvious answer to the thread title is 'Immigration'.



As far as the rest of the world, birth rates have come down dramatically in several countries over the past few decades, as they have globalised and improved. In fact, I believe their birth rates have come down faster than they did w/ similar levels of industrialisation in Europe and America. I simply do not agree with the notion that we are on the brink of overpopulation catastrophe...though I won't argue that nature will most certainly have some nasty surprises for us!

 

I agree with Sil. I'm almost 31 years old, married eight years, happily child-free, and the last thing I want interrupting my freedom and invading my pocketbook right now is a screaming child. My cat is a whole lot easier to take care of. Biological clock--*raspberry*.

And Dark Lady Mara, I did the same thing when I saw the title of this thread. I was going to skip to the end of the thread and then type, "Declining birth rates are a problem?" But I didn't--I read the whole thread.

In America we are six percent of the population but we use one third of the world's resources. The human population did not reach one billion until around 1805; did not reach two billion until around 1910; now, we're adding a billion people every 12 years or so. As far as Mother Nature sending a "pestilence" to help us out if we don't control the population ourselves--I often wonder about these new infections that are resistent to modern-day antibiotics, and the return of what were once considered 19th-century diseases.

Red-Seven has a point about the current population getting older and becoming more of a burden on the less-numerous younger generation; however, I think we Gen-Xers with baby-boomer parents will have an advantage that our parents didn't have. The World War II generation, who lived through the Depression, did not have as much of a chance to save for their old age as current generations have, and were probably not taught that it was necessary. Therefore, their children are more burdened with the problems that come with aging than we are.

 

I won't argue with total world population levels, because I also believe it to be way too high. However, caring for Baby Boomers in 15 - 20 yrs time is really going to sap the resources of most Western countries. Baby boomers are not known as the "me" generation for nothing, they have not collectively saved enough superannuation to support themselves. Also there will be a huge strain on medical services as the baby boomers start entering an age where they are more likely to require specialised treatments.

It is going to cost big money to look after a large aged population. That means higher taxes, which means a lower standard of living for everyone.

 

Assuming what you're saying is true, Uruk-hai, which I'm not sure I agree with you 100 percent, but anyway...assuming what you're saying is true and there would be a drain on the economy and a lowering of the standard of living, it would be temporary. I don't think the answer is for the current generation to start mass-producing babies; I think the birth rate is fine as it is, or could stand to be lowered in some places.

 

Rebecca191, Russia's death rate is 70% higher than it's birth rate.

E_S

 

Geez, that's pretty bad.

The replacement rate no matter where you live is 2.1 per couple. The extra .1 accounts for people who are infertile, people who have children but none survive, or people who simply chose not to have children. But countries are going below it. I guess in Russia it has more to do with bad living conditions - lots of children are born but not many survive. But in countries like Italy, people are only having like one child. I think Italy was the country, they were giving benefits if you had another child.

 

the answer to declining birth rates: no abortion.

How about: Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

E_S