Comments about ‘Sexual revolution leading to population decline crisis, speaker says’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 15 2013 4:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
AZ Cougar
Gilbert, AZ

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

grand junction, CO

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

A history buff
austin, TX


"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".

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Medical Lake, Washington

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.

Houston, TX

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?

Brigham City, UT

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.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

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

mid-state, TN

@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.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Sandy, UT

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!

Salt Lake City, UT

“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.

Provo, ut

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.

Bountiful, UT

"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.

Brer Rabbit
Spanish Fork, UT

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.


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.

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

per Red Corvette Nov 15th...

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

GK Willington
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments