Common sense tells me the Earth cannot sustain unlimited population growth.
Common sense doesn't tell me that we must maintain growth to find a cure
for cancer, or that if there twice as many of us, we might already have a cure.
Experience tells me we are more crowded than we were 40 years ago. It tells me
the world population is not declining, and Utah's is certainly not. What is
an optimum population for this earth? I can't say for sure, but for those
who think prosperity is tied to growth, there is a limit....... there will
eventually be a day of reckoning. When I drive at rush hour, I think the day of
reckoning may be here already. I pity my Grand kids, or their Grand kids, in
they live in a Utah with twice as many residents as we have now.
I read "What to Expect when no one's Expecting" and while the
author made good points and offered suggestions for the troubling depopulation
statistics, it was frustrating no statistics were given on the influence of
single young men and their contribution to this problem. Instead, all the blame
was placed squarely on single, never married women. Like me and all my single
friends. Why are we not married? Why are we not having children? Because no one
ever asked us. Murphy Brown was a nice fairy tale but this isn't the
nineties, the reality of being a single mom is why so many women are putting off
marriage. I suggest Jay Evensen read "Date-onomics: How Dating Became a
Lopsided Numbers Game" by Jon Birger.
Christmas is about having a baby, and the sacrament prayers focus on this too
(twice in each prayer), so perhaps traditional family brings a remission of sins
and links us to eternity and generations past and future. Also, rich nations
are becoming poor and the poor (who have more kids) are becoming rich. This is
also purpose of Christianity to exalt the poor and curse the rich. Children
worth more than money. Helaman 13 say riches can shrink and disappear.
And NBC, CBS, and ABC are wrong to say it costs $250,000 to raise one child.
Children make the future rich. Christmas is a shot in the arm to the economy,
always has been.
@ JoeCapitalist2"But I wouldn't trade my life with them for
all the freedom in the world."Okay, but isn't this freedom,
too? You chose the life you lead, yes? You chose to value and follow the norms
in your particular culture, and you've benefitted from doing so, including
in terms of social acceptance/approval within your community, right?Why is this a less selfish choice than those who see things differently and
follow their values/norms?
"it's sad to see posts whose authors do not recognize the purpose of
the earth's creation, or even worse those who view man as a parasitic
growth that needs to be reduced.'It is sad to see posts whose
authors do not recognize that the earth was not created for us. Who fail to see
that we are simply a part of the terrestrial system. We are not a
parasitic growth that needs to be reduced (typical conservative hyperbolic
logic..or lack there of). We are a part of the system and unless we live within
the system and stop trying to over power and control something we can't we
will continue to create unsolvable problems for ourselves that will lead
eventually to a dystopian nightmare.
Why yes, let's just continue the excellent quality of life we will give to
future generations. The air is so foul over most every city the children will be
lucky to live as long as we are. Our elected leaders are doing next to nothing
to clean up our environment. We keep voting for them. How about all that
abundant fresh water and unfouled ocean water? How about the oceans being fished
out? Well since the fish population is having mercury poisoning among other
poisons, maybe we should stop eating fish. How about living in rabbit hutches
eating chemically enhanced food? We are talking quality of life versis existing.
joecapitalist nailed it in his first post.it's sad to see posts
whose authors do not recognize the purpose of the earth's creation, or even
worse those who view man as a parasitic growth that needs to be reduced.
It's almost amusing to read the comments of those who first of all think
that humans are a creature separate and apart from the rest of the world and
therefore somehow exempt from the terrestrial system. And secondly think of
humans and the human condition within the context of decades rather than
millions of years. Of course the piÈce de
rÉ·sis·tance is when humans decided that economic growth was the
mark of a successful existence. That's the context of the
whole depopulation discussion. Without more people we can't sustain more
growth, and we're exempt from the consequences of continual growth (see the
world didn't experience mass famine in the 80's). Ever hear of the
dust bowl? Yea we fixed it for a while but the principle is still here. Hey while we're at it let's give half the world's
population the opportunity to destroy the world with the push of a button and
see how that works out for us over the next couple of hundred years.
The birth rate is dropping in developed and developing countries due to several
factors.In the past couples had a large number of children due no
family planning, the economic imperative to have labor on the farm and children
to look after the parents in their old age because 25% of children died before
adulthood.Since WW2 the world has seen medical science reduce the
death rate of children dramatically. The development of engineering has seen a
reduction labor required for production and the industrial accidents causing
deaths etc. The development of family planning has reduced the incidence of a
child every 2 years.Increased education, has helped families
increase production without the need for more children. The increased
production has means they can accumulate wealth (either personnel and
Government) to fund the later years.The population in the world is
increasing because life expectancy has increased due to medical and nutritional
science. This week an Italian Lady had her 116th birthday.More
recently the birthrate is dropping due to concern for the life due to climate
Harrison, Immigration is a great thing and has been for our nation. It is,
however, like many other things in life. No guarantees. Has it been a disaster?
How many people were killed by immigrants this week? How many by dyed in the
wool Americans? Would we be better off from a murders/week perspective if we
stopped every future immigrant right now or got rid of every handgun? Failure to
keep the threat in perspective isn't a reason to fear immigrants. In
the mean time, the world is not underpopulated, Japan has a cultural aversion to
immigration, not a fear based one, and have a nice evening.
When people feel economically secure they will settle down and be willing to
have a large family. I have three children currently and it's already more
then I can afford, especially considering my wife does not work. I don't
want more, and one of the main reasons is it's simply not economically
feasible. Wages have remained static for 20 years now (if adjusted for
inflation, and of course only for the middle class, the wealthy have seen a
dramatic increase in wealth but let's not go there) while the cost of
living has risen dramatically. It's not about being "selfish"
it's about economic realities.
10CC: " Today, it's a matter of staying as nimble as possible, ready to
quickly change directions."Single people call this "not
being tied down" to a spouse, children, and a house.I
didn't mean to imply that everyone who fails to have a family is a selfish
individual. Too many different circumstances out there to make that blanket of a
statement. But overall, a self-centered society is certainly a major factor in
the trend away from traditional families over the past few decades.There is no doubt that my life would be much more 'carefree' if I
didn't get married and have children. My life is full of parental and
spousal responsibilities. But I wouldn't trade my life with them for all
the freedom in the world.
I've heard these arguments for decades to boost immigration numbers. Our
country reached one hundred million in the 1920's, two hundred million by
1970, and 300 million by 2010. The US is not experiencing depopulation.Our world population is 7.4 billion and expected to reach 11 billion by 2100.
The world is not experiencing depopulation.
Well obviously Jay, the world is running out of people!
Great article Jay. To summarize: 'Large nuclear families have a measurable
positive impact on the social welfare and economic success of nations.'Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb was once (and still is for many)
part of the liberal canon of sacred writings. The fact that the mass starvation
did not happen in the 1970s and 80s as predicted may have tarnished it for some
of them.Hutterite: "Japan could solve it's [sic] problem
with the one methodology it adopts very little...immigration."Perhaps they have looked around the planet and taken note of how that worked
out for everyone else. Immigration is a great thing if you accept people who
want to be part of your culture, are needed and are likely to succeed. The open
borders "enough to go around, if we are allowed to go around" policies
have been a disaster whose effects were realized again this week at Ohio State.
Those who are concerned with population growth need to be aware of a few
things:People are not just consumers. In fact, people tend to
contribute far more than they consume. We have clearly seen this as quality of
life is far better in 1916 than 1816 and far better in 2016 than in 1916. More
people equals more innovation, creativity and other social and technical
contributions.One of the big problems that limits contributions is
limiting population growth. Our world society's acceptance of infanticide
has cost us dearly. We could already have a cure for cancer but the creator may
have been a murder victim by way of abortion. Efficient use of alternative power
sources may be a reality today but the contributor to that science may have been
dismembered before he/she was ever born.The world view that people
are the problem is a false narrative that has cost us dearly, not only in a
moral sense, but in a practical quality of life sense as well.
@JoeCapitalist - with all due respect, it's superficial to assign blame to
a worldwide epidemic of selfishness.Rather, it's an aggregate
result of individual rational decision making, in a hyper-competitive global
economy.I know many, many young people who view the idea of marriage
and four kids as being - essentially - *irresponsible* - given that job
conditions can change quickly. "Careers" are something the parents and
grandparents aspired to. Today, it's a matter of staying as nimble as
possible, ready to quickly change directions.The immigrants see the
same thing - they may have had large families where they came from, but their
kids quickly see that in our survival-of-the-fittest society, it's better
to "eat, drink and be merry..." and not create potential burdens for
others that you may not be able to support, yourself.Brutal, but
The problem is not so much about a declining population. It is really about
large numbers of people who have zero interest in getting married and raising a
family. If the average family was having 2 children instead of 3 or 4, we would
be alright. Instead the average is brought down by those who have zero children
and have no desire to ever have any.We are raising a generation of
self-centered individuals who are only interested in what society can give them
instead of what they can contribute to society. Fatherless children, divorce,
and gangs are symptoms of the epidemic deterioration of the family as the
stabilizing force for nations.
The US population has doubled over the course of my life. Cities are hugely
crowded, urban sprawl is expanding. People leave small towns to go to where the
jobs are... the massive urban areas. Another simple truth is that
most Americans can't afford to have larger families even if they want them.
This is exactly the story we're used to hearing. Around here. How
depopulation is going to empty the planet. There are four billion (with a B)
more people alive today than when I was born. If I live to my actuarial
predicted age, there will be nearly 3 billion more. Surely pointing to declining
populations in depressed areas or advanced nations is a bit of a mislead. I think it's really time we stop thinking of the world as a macrocosm of
what's happening in some small town we can pick out. Japan could
solve it's problem with the one methodology it adopts very
little...immigration. We are enough to go around, if we are allowed to go
around. In the mean time, as young couples today know, they may be under
pressure to have kids. But it's a mistake if you don't want them, and
totally OK if you don't want them.