Quantcast
Utah

Sexual revolution leading to population decline crisis, speaker says

Comments

Return To Article
  • Todd S USA, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    For those making the ignorant comments like, we have 7 billion people on earth and the population is increasing. They are very correct. The population is increasing in SOME AREAS OF THE WORLD. But being an accountant, you must understand what areas are increasing. Europe has 1.1 fertility levels and it takes 2.1 to replace the next generation. For example, Russia, if it continues with it's current trend will lose more than a 1/3 of it's population by 2060. Yes the population is increasing in countries like India and most African countries, but the most developed regions of the world the populations are on a declining trend. Yes trend, that doesn't mean tomorrow we'll lose half the population, but in the next 50 years we'll be seeing the affects. Those commenting about 7 billion aren't looking at the FUTURE! More children helps economies while less children do not. That is the facts!

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Nov. 20, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    I'm not sure how severely a stagnation or drop in population would affect us, but there are serious issues hampering us right now that are brought up in this article and that are absolutely and visibly true, so it's certainly worth investigating.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    Nov. 20, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    Population is a car driving downhill with nobody's foot on the gas and which will stop at the bottom of the hill. Ok, but what is the hill? Whose foot is missing? What is the gas? What is the level part at the bottom of the hill. Other than that I totally get it.

  • JoeE71 LEHI, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    DemoDave,
    Would you like to be the first to be "thinned?" What a callous thing to say! In fact, Adolph Hitler would be proud Americans think that way as he thought something similar. "Too many Jews, Blacks, and Christians. Time to thin the herd." Be careful what you say.
    I would like to know how you came up with that ridiculous number saying the earth can only have 3.5 billion on it. With all the wasted food and millions of open land, that is certainly a thoughtless claim.
    HERE is fact: all of the world can fit in Brazil with 20% still left over. And that is people having a small parcel of land. The earth is much bigger than your thinking. I pray you get over your euthanistic thinking. That thinking has killed hundreds of millions of people.

  • JoeE71 LEHI, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Perhaps some of you did not read the entire article. He said the boom of the past couple hundred years has been carrying us through, but CURRENT trends are carrying us into population decline. This is not his opinion, but is FACT. There is ample research backing this claim.
    Read the article before freaking out and saying innacuracies.
    This article was spot on and I wonder whether people are fighting the pro-family apect or the parts about teaching Constitutional values? Maybe those who are negative on this want to keep killing our babies? I don't know how people get mad about what this pro-family conference spoke about.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    Not all births are equal. People born into high-density poverty-stricken countries do not have the opportunities for learning that technology innovators require. The problem is not the number of people, but distribution. We need more people born into families of innovators of life enriching technologies and sciences to solve the problems our world faces for the coming decades.

    This sums up the problem with population decline in technologically advanced countries. Withoutfully trained workforces, the whole system is at risk of collapsing. Currently, some of the least qualified people are having children, while the "enlightened' and potentially best parents are opting out of childbearing because they have other priorities.

    The freedom is great, but it comes at a cost to future society.

    Other aspects of this conference sound really extreme, and about ideas I think I would personally find off-putting. For once I'd love a conservative conference that talked about how to preserve the traditional nuclear family that didn't require the mention of samesex families as "ruining" them. It's time to learn to ignore that, and focus on teaching peaceful coexistence.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    There are 7.5 billion people on the planet now. That's about 3.5 billion too many. It's time to thin the herd.

  • Swimmer Honeyville, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    I don't know anything about the person quoted in the article, but I do know that demographers have already shown that both western and eastern European countries are experiencing population decline. Russia, for instance, has instituted a program to pay women to have children-akin to some sort of tax rebate-because their population is shrinking.

    The U.S. population growth rate is almost flat lined. But for the illegal immigrants we all want to send packing our growth rate would be negative. So what's the effect? As we continue to increase government spending on social programs, we have to pay for them somehow. Less people entering the work force means an increased tax burden to cover the social payments to all the baby boomers who are retiring. Example: When Social Security was first instituted there were about 40 workers paying in for every retiree who was receiving payments. That ratio is now down to about 7:1. Same for Medicare, etc. Population decline is a real threat.

    This is a real problem for all western nations. That guy may have his own social agenda, but these are facts we can't afford to ignore.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    @brokenclay --

    "An Islamic France in our generation is all but unavoidable"

    Seriously??

    Less than 10% of the population in France is made up of people who immigrated from or descended from Muslim countries -- and only about a third of those indicate that they are "practicing believers".

    Less than 6% of the German population is of Muslim derivation.

    Less than 5% of the British population is of Muslim derivation.

    Even in Russia -- which has traditionally had a high Muslim population (starting more than 1000 years ago) -- Muslim minorities only represent 14% of the population.

  • brokenclay Chandler, AZ
    Nov. 18, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    It is true that France is offering financial incentives to women to encourage them to have children. This is also the only issue that will stop the Chinese juggernaut in another generation.

    There are a lot of factors to consider here. It is true that the developed world is no longer hitting replacement levels, and that this will be devastating to the younger generation who has to support a vast, aged population. No, it isn't sustainable to continue population growth just to support the aged, but neither is it healthy to have a sudden, massive population drop in a generation. Levels need to be sustained or decreased very gradually, which would take hundreds of years.

    On the other hand, areas like India, Africa, and the Middle East are burgeoning in population, balancing the Western decline. What is disturbing about this is that it is Islam that is reaping much of this increase-- especially in European countries like France, Germany, and the UK, and in Russia. An Islamic France in our generation is all but unavoidable-- only extreme measures like total deportation can prevent it now.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Nov. 18, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Must have been a slow day in news to have included something like this - the only thing that articles do for me like this is to make me laugh how can the general populace buy into this. "Red Corvette's" choice of words sums it up for me "Stunningly delusional".

  • JMcQuivey Boston, MA
    Nov. 17, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    I don't agree with much of the conference, but the demographic facts that they refer to are true. The best book on the topic for the non-demographer is What to Expect When No One is Expecting. It features analysis of current demographic trends and all of the UN population projection methods to show that yes, despite slight overall global population rise, most of the developed world has already turned the corner toward depopulation. This observation is value-neutral. Making it doesn't imply that we don't like poor nations; it's of concern because the vast majority of economic growth and resource production comes from depopulating developed countries. Industrializing nations can only grow by selling goods and services to those developed nations. If they depopulate, the rest of the world has no one to sell to = developing world remains undeveloped and therefore miserable. Meanwhile, depopulating developed nations will experience profound economic turmoil as their youngest citizens cannot afford to bear the cost of the aged. We in the US will see massive recession once our worker population falls below a relatively high threshold. Point is this: Complete social breakdown occurs long before total population collapse.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Nov. 17, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    We're on a trajectory of over 10 billion people. I wouldn't call that a shortage of people.

  • lonepeakstudent Alpine, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    @prof22

    So why is it that you get to enforce your Western-ideals and arrogance by asserting that these other nations are not "civilized"? This is exactly what the book Heart of Darkness was written about.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 17, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @FelisConcolor --

    "Whatever makes you feel better. "

    Thanks. Facts do make me feel much better than fantasies.

    I understand why Mormons are so enamored of these population decline myths. Really, I do. After all, procreation is a fundamental aspect of your religion.

    But that doesn't magically turn those myths into reality.

    Yes, a population overburdened with the aged may certainly have some deleterious effects on quality of life issues. But a population boom would have far worse effects on things like widespread poverty, starvation, environmental collapse, and so on.

    In order to make rational decisions, we need to balance costs and benefits on ALL sides.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    If increasing the population of each country and the world as a whole was a good thing, the people in Africa, South America, Indonesia, India and other developing and 3rd world countries would be the most prosperous on earth.

    Instead, it is the industrialized countries, especially the European countries that have the highest standards of living and quality of life.

    Increasing the world population to "support" the aging population is a Ponzi Scheme. It is not sustainable.

  • FelisConcolor North Salt Lake, UT
    Nov. 17, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    Contrariusrer:

    Whatever makes you feel better. There's an old saying: If you want to know what someone thinks is really important then watch what they do, not what they say.

    China might still give lip service to it's one-child policy, but this change speaks volumes about what they REALLY think of forced population control. Look for more changes to the policy in the future, as the country continues its demographic death spiral.

  • TonyD San Jose, CA
    Nov. 17, 2013 2:57 a.m.

    The world is facing a decline in the annual production of all three fossil fuels in the next 10 to 15 years. Population contraction is one excellent way to deal with this huge coming problem.

    However, we are no where near population contraction. In fact, the UN has three scenarios for world population growth and none of the three show any decline by 2050. The United States is projected to increase 100 million people in the next 52 years.

    And in parallel with the rising population, is technology which constantly eliminates jobs, and we constantly export jobs. 110 years ago there was over 90% of the population working on farms. Now it is a single digit percentage. Similarly, just about every other industry
    has found ways to need less workers for the same amount of work.

  • logicguy TUCSON, AZ
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    I find it amazing to read all the comments by naysayers who say this article is delusional. The birth rate in a large portion of the world is below the replacement rate, in some countries well below. It should be obvious that, if that trend continues, the populations of those countries will decline as the older portion of the population dies off. If a country's population stays about the same, or grows, due to a large influx of immigrants, then the home counties are losing population. Russia's population has been declining by about 1/4 million per year. A few years ago, Russia declared a "Conception Day", and encouraged employers to give their workers the day off, to try to do something about it. And, on 20 January 2010, the BBC reported: "South Koreans told to go home and make babies".

  • logicguy TUCSON, AZ
    Nov. 16, 2013 8:52 p.m.

    >Robert F. Smith: "What is so sad is that the United States of America has the highest infant mortality rate of modern industrialized nations. Why? Because many mothers cannot obtain prenatal and neonatal care. They have no health insurance, thus leaving their children without preventive medical care."
    I get so tired of reading statements like these. My wife and I did not have medical insurance when our first child was born. My wife received good prenatal care and our newborn son good neonatal care. How did we accomplish that? Well, duh!... we took responsibility for our lives and paid for it.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 16, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    Oh, dear! Am I really reading this?

    It seems to say we are not going to have enough babies born to races and religions that the author approves of.
    And their is gratuitous disdain of same sex couples, to boot!

    I invite everyone to consider which historical figures wanted to control which races are dominant
    - certainly, you did not get such ideas from Brigham Young or George Washington.

    Does anyone agree with me that the DN could do with fewer articles like this, which seem to cater to the oldest and most conservative, while, (in my view) turning off younger potential readers? I am 68: my father was less conservative than these articles.

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    Nov. 16, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    When a society goes below the "replacement" fertility rate, it may not die outright, but it can only maintain a population through massive, mostly unassimilated immigration. If the immigrants are the only ones reproducing, guess what? In a generation or two, when the immigrants are in the majority, the country will necessarily be a very different place. It's already happening in western Europe (cf. Holland, Sweden, even Germany), and one could argue, persuasively, that it's happening here in the U.S. due to lax immigration enforcement. That serves the short-term political and economic interests of the few, but it presents a scary prospect for our children and grandchildren. And Japan and Russia are demonstrating what happens to infertile countries that don't allow or encourage immigration--they die out in a hurry.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    China announced this week they are lifting restriction on child bearing, they know there is no future economy without babies. There is no future without youth. Maybe the 1995 "Proclamation on Family" was prophetic and inspired and correct to warn us of consequences of ignoring the family. Thank-you Pres. Hinckley. I remember in a college philosophy class in which the professor asked if reproduction is for recreation or re-population and I won't give details of the discussion except that religion was mocked by most in the class and by the professor, and yet I've wondered since then if that smart single Ph.d professor would have had a job if other people didn't have children. (the answer is no) We all depend on others (and hopefully ourselves) to have children: that is economics and that is hope and that is Christmas.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    If you are a religious person who believes that God has a purpose in all this, you should also believe that he would not let his plan be hindered by mortals.

    If you are not a religious person,Que Sera, Sera “what ever will be will be”.

  • Ticus Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    While I generally agree with the "population decline crisis" issue, I feel that Feder's take on it is a bit extreme and makes it harder to take the issue seriously. I wish he'd be more careful and accurate with his assessment, because the issue is real and important.

    There is an article from 2007 by Herbert Meyer that I believe has a much more reasonable and thorough take on the shifting demographics issues that we may see in the next 50 to 100 years. I can't post links in these comments, but to find it, search for the following on Google: "What In The World Is Going On? A Global Intelligence Briefing For CEOs by Herbert Meyer"

  • Robert F. Smith Provo, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    What is so sad is that the United States of America has the highest infant mortality rate of modern industrialized nations. Why? Because many mothers cannot obtain prenatal and neonatal care. They have no health insurance, thus leaving their children without preventive medical care. Why is it that so-called "pro-family" groups are so opposed to abortion, but never speak in favor of health care for needy mothers and children? Why do they oppose the WIC program? Where is their Christian charity and love?

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    Nov. 16, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    Well folks - "time will tell the tale." Personally? I think this world and its people will continue a downhill slide and land hard into a realm of man made disasters.

  • prof22 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    @niners:

    "You know how I know this is an absolute lie? I live in South Korea and it has 52 million people living in a country the size of Indiana. You are telling me the government here wants them to reproduce at a higher rate? I would LOVE to see a source for that."

    I am amazed at your comment and that you do not understand the severe problem that faces your nation. Yes, I am telling you that is precisely what your government wants to do and they have enacted policies and programs to those ends. South Korea has one of the lowest TFR's (Total Fertility Rate) in the world at 1.24,well below replacement rate of 2.1

    BTW - for the stats you demanded: type in "total fertility rate" in Google and the first five hits you will find CIA, World Bank, and UN data that all says the same thing. Wikipedia will be your first hit (go to it and you will find tables that all reference these other sources).

    Call a government official there and they will verify this.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Actually, education is leading to a population decline. The more educated women are, the fewer children they have.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    All indications are that human fertility/growth rates are positive and will continue to stay so for the foreseeable future (even if approaching replacement levels). However, let's assume a whopping -5% population growth rate (i.e. population goes down by 5% every year). By my quick calculation, starting with 6 billion people, there would still be over a dozen people left after 400 years. That's enough to outfit an ark and start all over again.

    N(t) = N(0) e ** rt

    N(0)= 6,000,000,000
    r= -0.05
    t= 400
    N(400)= ~12

    (Somebody check my math, please.)

    It's pretty hard to contemplate a natural or cultural phenomenon that would cause a sustained negative growth rate of this magnitude for any period of time (human population recovered from the Black Death and other plagues with nary a dent in the growth curve). The fears of human extinction are vastly, vastly overblown.

    As to the Harvey Milk postage stamp, I suppose the conference organizers would much rather honor the Twinkie.

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    re: AZ Cougar

    "BYUTV has a two part documentary called "Demographic Winter". I suggest watching it and then doing your own research before dismissing the facts presented in this article."

    Because, byu is completely unbiased. Plus, the entity they are owned by has never mentioned a single word about demographic issues?

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    per Red Corvette Nov 15th...

    Exactly. How is less people be using finite resources a bad thing?

  • truthsandwich RANDOLPH, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Active Mormon here.

    You can "instruct your children to only date and marry virgins" as a strict rule.

    Or you can truly believe in repentance.

    It is one or the other.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    It is hard to take population decline during this century seriously. Those who fear population decline are those afraid that there will be fewer people to buy their stuff, and continue to maintain cheap labor. There is no a reason for countries to maintain large populations. There are already large surpluses of labor due to automation, mechanization, and super weapons that make a large military no longer necessary.

    Elder Dallin Oaks spoke of his concern at the last conference of the declining fertility rate in the advanced western countries. I doubt that there is a real problem. For example the female fertility rate in the United States is 1.9 per female and the replacement rate is 2.1. The replacement rate has been at or below 2.1 since the mid 1970s. However, the U.S. population continues to expand by over 2 million per year. The U.K. has even a lower fertility rate, but their population is also expanding at record levels.

    How is this possible? It is possible due to the flood of immigrants into countries like the U.S. and U.K. who then have children at a much higher rate than natives.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    "The philosophy that's being promoted out there is that the family can be anything you want it to be and the traditional man and woman with children concept is outmoded, outdated and in a lot of cases is detrimental to our happiness and our freedom to do the things we want to do,"

    ---

    For most people, family IS a man and a woman being married with children. For homosexuals this doesn't work. They are wired differently.

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    Nov. 16, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    Perhaps the problem he's thinking about is the change in lifestyle we'll have to endure. Since we have established a number of social pyramid programs that rely on an ever growing group of workers to support the older people. That will certainly change our lifestyle, we might actually have to start paying our own bills rather than passing them down to the next generation.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    “Sometime in this century we’re going to start running out of white people,” said the director of communications for the World Congress of Families.

    There. Fixed it for you.

  • taxed2death Sandy, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Overpopulation is the problem, not under population. This speaker is not living in reality. We must control our population growth, otherwise, the number of people will continue to outstrip our planet's ability to replenish itself and our resources. We have far too many unwanted children who go hungry in the world already. Increased population only compounds so many problems. Enough already!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    The alliance between religion and business is a temporary truce in their competition with political government; in the end religion will win out against political government and business because it is a more controlling government and a more profitable business.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    The best social security system is and always has been having offspring. Children will give their loyalty to parents over religion, business, siblings and even the love of outsiders.

    Religions and churches capitalize on this truism by promoting what they call “traditional” marriage and family structure. The success or failure of a religion depends heavily on the number of members under its control and the most successful growth source of new members is to have members have lots of children.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    @FelisConcolor --

    "However, China -- the country with the most "progressive" population control policies over the past half-century -- has suddenly reversed itself after 30 years of real-world fertility reduction experience, and decided that having two children is better than one. "

    This is not actually true.

    China is still not allowing two-children families across the board, and they are certainly not ENCOURAGING families to have two children.

    For years, Chinese couples have been allowed to have two kids if both parents could prove that they were only children. As of the recent announcement, couples who can prove that at least ONE was an only child themselves will now be allowed to have two kids.

    That's the only change.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    As Red Corvette said, this is delusional. Making it no surprise it was printed here.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    Rich affluent areas have fewer kids; Japan stopped having kids in 1990 and their economy dropped and has suffered since then. Italy and Greece and all of Europe would love to have a young generation. Even powerhouse- economy Germany is seeing towns disappear. Read Wall Street Journal article "America's Baby Bust" from February by a Mr. Jonathan Last, who says it really doesn't matter who lives in the White House, what is most important is that our nation is having babies, and it isn't. I'm 40 and never had kids yet want to adopt (I know I'm part of problem). Many religious people of all faiths put college and power and career and Ivy League above family and the future.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    Undoubtedly, a forecast of human extinction is overstating the case. However, the demographic population shift for many nations to a predominantly older age is going to affect everyone in those nations. The older genertion will suffer neglect, and the few younger people will be carrying a burden that cannot be supported.

    Certainly, one hundred years from now could be a difficult time to live. Of course, a lot can happen in 100 years. War, famine, and plague may decimate the older people. We might end up with a supportable balance, but those aren't things to be hoped for.

    My siblings and I have been caring for an aged father, and the effort has been herculean. I don't know what would have happened to him if he had no children.

    My hat is off to those people who were able to have many children. My wife and I were limited to two children due to circumstances beyond our control. What will their generation face?

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Nov. 16, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    People look out the window and see their neighbors returning home from the hospital with baby number three and are convinced that this article is pure fantasy.

    One reader suggested how much nicer it would be if the population dropped back down to 1960's levels. Of course, the problem being that much of that population would be senior citizens - retired and expecting a younger generation to support them.

    Scientists quote that with global climate change we could be in serious trouble in a few hundred years and drastic policy changes are preached by every facet of society to save the planet. This article suggests a similar scenario population wise over the same time frame and the response is - don't worry about it, it's not real, get a life.

  • billmosby Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    In the not so distant past, people could have as many children as possible and nature kept the population in balance or at least slowly growing, and the age distribution seems to have been about right. With modern medicine it has become "morally impossible" to let nature take its course at either end of the age spectrum, and we see the results.

    We're going to have to learn to live with either a population that doubles every 50 years or so to keep the age distribution where we would apparently like it to be, or else learn to live with a population skewed greatly towards the older end of the age spectrum. Since medicine also seems to be helping us live longer productive lives, the latter should be easier. It only really takes an attitude shift that values old people more than is currently the case. At 64 I have a lot more to contribute than people seem to recognize.

  • A history buff austin, TX
    Nov. 16, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    niner

    "You know how I know this is an absolute lie? I live in South Korea and it has 52 million people living in a country the size of Indiana. You are telling me the government here wants them to reproduce at a higher rate? I would LOVE to see a source for that."

    Just Google something like "South Korea encourages higher birthrate".

  • elgreco grand junction, CO
    Nov. 16, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    This planet needs fewer people, not more. This should be painfully obvious to just about any one...except the author of this article.

  • billmosby Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    Well, sure, mathematically we're just one generation away from distinction. And of course if we get to below replacement procreation levels for a while we end up with a bunch of old geezers who can't find work. Sounds like the "demographic problem" is actually one of too many picky employers, lol.

  • AZ Cougar Gilbert, AZ
    Nov. 16, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    On the same day that all you naysayers are discounting the claims in this article, China announces they are relaxing their one child policy so people can have more children. Why? Because the simple math is that if every two people in a country are only allowed to have one child, the population will drop in half in one generation. That would be catastrophic to any society. How does a shrinking youth population sustain the needs of a large senior citizen population without major financial consequences and civil unrest?

    China is seeing the light. Too bad so many "enlightened" western societies are still buying the population propaganda.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    I simply ask, "Why is this delusional nonsense the lead story in the Deseret News?" The answer is helpful. It exposes delusion on much larger scale.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    What a needed conference to accurately address the consequences of abortion, gay marriage and promiscuity which seems to have megaphones constantly blasting in our ears. I applaud the organizers and speakers of this conference. China and Russia are in dire straits because of lack of births as is Europe. This clarion call to protect the family against the tidal wave of money, political power,from those attacking it.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 16, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    @FelisConcolor --

    "However, China -- the country with the most "progressive" population control policies over the past half-century -- has suddenly reversed itself after 30 years of real-world fertility reduction experience, and decided that having two children is better than one. "

    This is not actually true.

    China is still not allowing two-children families across the board, and they are certainly not ENCOURAGING families to have two children.

    For years, Chinese couples have been allowed to have two kids if both parents could prove that they were only children. As of the recent announcement, couples who can prove that at least ONE was an only child themselves will now be allowed to have two kids.

    That's the only change.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Nov. 16, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    @ micawber
    I think you are reading it too slanted. When I read it, I didn't think that he was trying to say "good countries matter more"... seems an odd take.
    Perhaps he didn't connect the dots because it is common knowledge that what trends start in what you are calling "good' countries often migrate to what you call "bad" countries. Trends of not valuing children for whatever reason (gov't based, selfishness based, economic worries based, etc). may migrate to third world countries. Their birthrates may go down too.

    I don't necessarily agree that this trend will transfer to countries that are producing at a higher birthrate right now, but if so, then economically it's a bad thing for those countries. China will experience this economic ouch as their birthrates haven't been keeping up to support their population. U.S. will too if the immigrant influx ever drops off.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 4:57 a.m.

    All I want to say with out sounding like an idiot, is I's glad my kids are all grown up. The people raising a family are going to have a rough time. It's going to take every cent when every year life cost 6% and you get 1.5% raise. Life costs a dime. But what if you only have a nickel? That's life.

  • niners SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 3:04 a.m.

    prof22
    In fact, many governments (Russia, South Korea, France, to name a few) have enacted extreme policies (financial incentives, workplace programs,etc.)to encourage reproduction. Before you make outlandish rebuttals you should know the facts.

    ----------

    You know how I know this is an absolute lie? I live in South Korea and it has 52 million people living in a country the size of Indiana. You are telling me the government here wants them to reproduce at a higher rate? I would LOVE to see a source for that.

    On another note, if the world population cut in half in 50 years what would the problem be? that would mean there are roughly 3.5 billion people living on Earth just like there was in 1965. Was the world a terrible and scary place in 1965 because there was 3.5 billion people living on it? I mean come on, this guy is a joke.

  • A history buff austin, TX
    Nov. 16, 2013 1:35 a.m.

    There's a wonderful Ted Talk by Hans Rosling, called "the best stats you've ever seen", that explains what is happening to world populations. I don't think the "zero population is the answer, my friend" crowd has seen it.

  • prof22 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 16, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    @atl134:

    "Oh, I see, there's certain types of people you want there to be more of than others."

    Seriously, that made me chuckle a little. Not sure where you came to that conclusion. I never said anything that could be construed the way you are inferring. I was not making a moral argument or judgement, just commenting on faulty statistical conclusions of some posters. It is an absolute fact that birth rates are frightfully anemic in most civilized nations. Third world countries by and large have high birth rates - period. Could it be that you are saying there are "certain types of people you want there to be more of than others?" The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. This is to say, your conclusion of what you think I inferred is more of a function of your philosophical stance, rather than my personal opinion.

  • prof22 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 11:52 p.m.

    @micawber: Agreed. I was not making a moral argument nor inferring any conclusion. I am just pointing out that some posts are not looking accurately at the statistics. Quite a few of these posts are saying there is no birth rate problem when indeed there is in some countries. I'll leave the social commentary to those that feel they have an axe to grind.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 11:05 p.m.

    7 billion humans on earth.

    Up from 6 billion.

    This claim is garbage.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    @prof22
    "The USA just slipped below the replacement level of 2.1 not to long ago and much of Western Europe is dangerously low - 1.2 to 1.7!!!"

    "We are facing an incredible "birth dearth" in the rest of the civilized world"

    Oh, I see, there's certain types of people you want there to be more of than others.

  • AZ Cougar Gilbert, AZ
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    BYUTV has a two part documentary called "Demographic Winter". I suggest watching it and then doing your own research before dismissing the facts presented in this article.

    The population is growing because of advances in medicine keeping people alive longer. But birth rates in many countries are well below the 2.1 replacement level.

    The U.N. may be predicting continued population growth from now until 2050 and I believe the documentary agrees with that projection. The person quoted in the article says this "century", not tomorrow. But it gets ugly after 2050 if birth rates don't increase. The population will be a bunch of old people with no young workers to support them.

  • FelisConcolor North Salt Lake, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    Like most wealthy Westerners who have been indoctrinated by anti-child Malthusian philosophy, some posters think that declining birthrates are an unqualified good. And in the wishful, dreamy world of modern population control theory, they are.

    However, China -- the country with the most "progressive" population control policies over the past half-century -- has suddenly reversed itself after 30 years of real-world fertility reduction experience, and decided that having two children is better than one. Why?

    Because after a generation of forcing a repressive one-child policy on their people, the Chinese are left with a population of 24 million surplus men (thanks to sex-selection abortions caused by parents wanting a son instead of a daughter) along with the very real prospect of more than a quarter of the Chinese population being older than age 65 in by 2040. Who is going to take care of these people, and more importantly, who will pay for their care?

    As Mark Steyn is fond of saying, the future belongs to those who show up. Those individuals who have children will determine the future of humanity. Those who don't will go extinct.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    Kind of interesting, we keep trying as a nation to do all these things to be "with it" and the countries that we are trying to be like are proving it doesn't work. Just read today that China is now going to let people have two children instead of one. If two people can only have one child, then eventually there will be a 50% reduction and this will continue to cycle. But it is pretty sad that our government is forcing birth control and abortions are the "in thing" and people just are not having babies as much as before. Oh and the ones that do, out of wedlock, I am to old for this worlds values that we live in.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    @prof22: Mr. Feder said humanity was looking at extinction as a result of population decline. Your statistics suggest that is untrue. Some countries may face decreasing populations, the world does not. So, Mr. Feder seems to be saying "we need more babies in 'good' countries, not 'bad' countries." Are you comfortable with that approach? I am not.

  • prof22 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 8:02 p.m.

    I am stunned with the ignorance displayed in the comments above:

    "I'm not seeing the crisis."

    "I can't believe how much I disagree with the guy quoted in this article."

    "To state that the earth is facing a population decline crisis is nothing short of delusional."

    It is an absolute fact (check any reputable demographic study)that we are are facing such a crisis. The USA just slipped below the replacement level of 2.1 not to long ago and much of Western Europe is dangerously low - 1.2 to 1.7!!!

    NOW, DON'T STOP READING...

    Here is the catch that no one is mentioning: the worldwide birth rate is going up and has done so in the past several centuries. HOWEVER: this is due to population explosion in the Africa and the middle east, where there is severe neglect and abuse of children unfortunately. We are facing an incredible "birth dearth" in the rest of the civilized world and the statics prove that overwhelmingly!

    In fact, many governments (Russia, South Korea, France, to name a few) have enacted extreme policies (financial incentives, workplace programs,etc.)to encourage reproduction. Before you make outlandish rebuttals you should know the facts.

  • mountainlocal Brooklyn, NY
    Nov. 15, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    Anyone believing this centuries biggest crisis will be population decline due to the sexual revolution needs to contact me about a bridge I have for sale.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    I believe what he is saying is we have slipped below the magic number of 2.1 in so much of the world that there is a threat to continued population growth.
    An interesting twist is that immigrants coming to the United States experience HIGHER fertility rates than their peers back home.
    I don't believe this speaker is predicting a sudden decline, but trends are moving downward. In fact, 100% percent of the growth in the US population is from the foreign-born and their offspring. Baby boomers and their echo have leveled off.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    I can't believe how much I disagree with the guy quoted in this article. First of all there is no threat to a decrease in population. A few hundred years ago we hit 1 billion people on the planet. We are already over 7 billion people now. For hundreds of thousands of years (yes the earth is older than 6,000 years) the earth had less than a billion people. And this guy is now telling us that we are in danger of "going extinct"? This is what happens when people stop believing in facts, research, and science and start using feelings and emotions to find truth.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 15, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    World population has experienced continuous growth every year since the end of the black death and great famine in 1350. Current UN predictions have us somewhere between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050. I'm not seeing the crisis. And I'm certainly not seeing a reason for anyone to assert that they have some sort of insight as to why someone might want to have sex for reasons other than procreation. People have a natural desire for sex. For children, not so much. That's good, that's their choice and it's good that they're making it. You should be cheering every prevented child as an abortion someone was smart enough to prevent, and encourage more of it. It's none of anyone elses' business whether or not people want to have children, and no imaginary population bogeyman is going to change that.