 |
 |
Issue for the 2020s -- fertility rate
| December 30th, 2019 at 10:05:42 PM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Of course they do. Pick any country https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINCAN Canada https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINMEX Mexico https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINchn China https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINbra Brazil https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINfra France But a big country like India stays above 2, and Nigeria above 5 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINind India https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINNGA Nigeria |
| December 30th, 2019 at 11:01:35 PM permalink | |
| Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 |
The question is can disease and general poverty lessen the problems caused by a high birth rate. Are "national" birth rates even representative of anything? One Scandinavian country recently found that not a single moslem immigrant had any social interaction with any non-moslems, so the "national" rate is distorted. Q |
| December 31st, 2019 at 12:27:08 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Historically, diseases like the Black Death wiped out any gains because of birth rate and massively reduced the population. Starvation and emigration reduced the population of Ireland by half in the mid 19th century. In the last 100 years it has been nearly impossible for famine and disease to counteract birth rate. The closest a major country has ever come was the Great Famine in China in 1960. Such a population control is usually known as a Malthusian Correction, after Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) , the British preacher who first wrote about population explosions in the early 19th century. It is estimated that the world population reached 1 billion in the middle of his lifetime. Before Malthus writers only wrote about too much population in a very limited area (a city or a small region along a river or in a plain). Malthus believed that Malthusian corrections were inevitable, since he had no way of predicting widespread birth control. Some people believe that Sub-Saharan Africa will find a Malthusian correction impossible to avoid. But at the same time, over half the population of the Earth lives in a country with total fertility rate below replacement levels. |
| December 31st, 2019 at 1:33:51 PM permalink | |
| Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | Can disease aided by poverty, poor hygiene, no education, no hope, etc. act as an adequate check on the birth rate. Crime might increase the die-off rate. |
| January 1st, 2020 at 6:19:02 AM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18204 |
It seems wealth is the best check on the birth rate. With the until recent exception of the USA, all the wealthy countries are the ones below replacement fertility rates. Within the USA lower income groups seem to historically have had more kids than wealthy families. It brings things back to the question that is the real question. "What part of the population wants and enjoys having and raising children?" That is the real fertility rate thing. While there have for a generation been those waiting lists to adopt, to the point of overseas adoptions, I do not know where to put that percent. As a guess I think at best, at BEST, JERRY, only half the population both wants and enjoys. So you take that then you have to wonder how many couples match up. The 50% that both want and enjoy does not fall equal M/F. Thus, lots of guys just fall into line as the supply of good women who have no desire for kids is very low. It is nice to see those loving couples who have and want a big family, but there is a reason they are so rare. The President is a fink. |
| January 1st, 2020 at 11:05:10 PM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
From Census bureau year Mexican births , deaths, migration 2015 2,286,217 -640,336 -204,518 2016 2,283,512 -651,552 -213,078 2017 2,279,719 -662,738 -220,497 2018 2,273,564 -673,882 -227,986 2019 2,267,536 -686,245 -235,539 2020 2,259,086 -698,567 -241,861 estimated Notice the number of births goes down every year, and the number of deaths increase. In order for there to be no increase in population in 2021 both the number of death and number of immigrants would have to increase by 140%. What you are talking about is a major tragedy if the combined death rates and immigration rates reached such record numbers. It is the definition of a Mathusian catastrophe. Mexico should be approaching zero population growth in two decades, but still assuming an migration rate of over 300K per year. In order to get Zero Population growth you would have to increase death numbers and immigration numbers by 4% apiece. year Mexican births , deaths, migration 2048 1,739,298 -1,252,235 -318,696 2049 1,715,380 -1,276,002 -319,000 2050 1,692,379 -1,300,903 -319,203 |
| January 2nd, 2020 at 12:05:19 PM permalink | |
| DRich Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 51 Posts: 4961 | I just read a stat that four babies are born every second and only two people die each second. At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a detrrent. |
| January 2nd, 2020 at 12:42:09 PM permalink | |
| kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4492 |
That is a little high but in the right area. Your stat is about 100 million a year increase. Latest estimate is 81 million a year increase. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
| January 2nd, 2020 at 1:15:04 PM permalink | |
| Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25011 |
Last I read it will flatten out by 2050, then start to decrease. May happen even sooner than that. Planet population decline every year. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
| January 5th, 2020 at 4:20:22 PM permalink | |
| AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18204 |
On a long, long driving weekend I thought more on the whole thing. Two questions for thought. 1. When a society falls below 2.0 TFR for an extended period, say 10 years, will it ever recover? I say "extended" because wars and depressions will cause women to postpone having kids either by choice or not. 10 years just seems long enough to establish a trend not from short term reasons. 2. Is it inevitable that every society will fall below 2.0 as it gets wealthy? I think the answer to both is "yes." The first we are seeing the results. EU nations just keep falling despite prosperity. Italy, the stereotypical "big family" nation has fallen at least as much as most. Germany, historically a "hates kids" society, is in a similar position. So it seems that as wealth goes up the desire for children falls. For the same reasons, I see 2 as "yes." One reason for lots of kids in poor societies is security in old age. Have 10, 5 survive, 1-2 take care of you. But the safety net takes care of you, less reason for more kids. The 2100s will be a crazy time. The President is a fink. |