Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Worldwide Fertility Rates

Posted by on Sep. 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
  • 19 Replies

So that video about Muslim fertility rates got me thinking about the various fertility rates throughout the war. (NOTE: I'm not making this post about Muslim fertility rates). As I looked at this map, the source can be found here, I realized something. Most (not all) of the countries which claim to be Western, and support either socialist or communist policies, have a fertility rate that is in decline. This means that some major power players in the world, Europe, Russia, China, Canada, even Australia, are not procreating at a rate that will keep their nationality intact for future generations. And the US isn't far behind ... we are merely maintaining our population, we are not growing or declining. Another observation that I made was that America's major importer, China, is not procreating at a rate that will sustain America's consumption. In other words, the country that we are depending on for goods, is handi-capping itself because of their limitations on fertility, AND that unless America either starts producing for itself or finds another country to import from, that we will loose our standard of living (not including any impact from social programs like UHC being implemented) just by maintaining our current relationship with China.

What are your thoughts on the fertility rates? How do you think the current rates will impact our children's future?



Map Key
Color Fertility rate Long-term impact
Red less than 2 declining population
Yellow about 2 stable population
Green 3 to 4 growing population
Blue 4 or more rapidly growing population
Gray data not available
by on Sep. 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
othermom
by Bronze Member on Sep. 7, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Interesting.

Eilish
by on Sep. 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM

No one has an opinion on fertility rates??

Stefanie1085
by Silver Member on Sep. 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM

I'm at a loss to undertand why China's declining populations would  affect American's consumption rates. Because they won't have enough people to work production? Personally, I am all for the US being more self sufficient.

On an aside, I think that declining fertility may be because humans, as a species are overpopulated. It may be a genetic precaution, but it may be diet or any number of things. Truth is, the Earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population. That limit may be overtaxed and hence the declining poplations.

Eilish
by on Sep. 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM


Quoting Stefanie1085:

I'm at a loss to undertand why China's declining populations would  affect American's consumption rates. Because they won't have enough people to work production? Personally, I am all for the US being more self sufficient.

Mainly because they won't have the people to work production.

On an aside, I think that declining fertility may be because humans, as a species are overpopulated. It may be a genetic precaution, but it may be diet or any number of things. Truth is, the Earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population. That limit may be overtaxed and hence the declining poplations.

On what basis do you make the claim that the earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population? And what is the earth's limit if there is one? What if the world population goes over that limit? Should humans intervene somehow to bring the population back down?


stormcris
by Christy on Sep. 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Why do you feel a decline in an overpopulated society is a bad thing? Conditions in China for living are deplorable so are they for many sectors in the world. World population cannot continue to grow and the planet sustain the growth rate. Look at the conditions for China...they have to stack in order to find housing for their own people, their waters are polluted and there is not enough land for them to grow crops that will survive any major disaster beyond the consumption. They can never be self sufficient in food at their current population. If everyone had extremely large families such as those see recently in the news we would reach critical mass in the world and the rate of disease would be so prevalent we would not have enough land to bury the dead. That is why China freaks out each time something comes along that is highly contagious and deadly. When balance is not in place everything suffers.

Eilish
by on Sep. 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM


Quoting stormcris:

Why do you feel a decline in an overpopulated society is a bad thing? Conditions in China for living are deplorable so are they for many sectors in the world. World population cannot continue to grow and the planet sustain the growth rate. Look at the conditions for China...they have to stack in order to find housing for their own people, their waters are polluted and there is not enough land for them to grow crops that will survive any major disaster beyond the consumption. They can never be self sufficient in food at their current population. If everyone had extremely large families such as those see recently in the news we would reach critical mass in the world and the rate of disease would be so prevalent we would not have enough land to bury the dead. That is why China freaks out each time something comes along that is highly contagious and deadly. When balance is not in place everything suffers.

This is true, but from what I understand the decline in fertility in China is government directed ... it has nothing to do with a natural evolution, or a balancing act. When it is government-directed, then you have an oligarchy determining who is and who is not worthy of life, as opposed to a natural order of things, that would keep the population in check by natural means.

In Europe I think there is a decline of moralle amongst Europeans and so don't feel a need to procreate.

I don't know about why Canada is going through a decline .... (I could speculate but then this post will get off topic ;-)

And the one country in the Western world which has based it's existance on freedom and liberty is now stagnant. That is what bothers me the most I guess.

Stefanie1085
by Silver Member on Sep. 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM


Quoting Eilish:


Quoting Stefanie1085:

I'm at a loss to undertand why China's declining populations would  affect American's consumption rates. Because they won't have enough people to work production? Personally, I am all for the US being more self sufficient.

Mainly because they won't have the people to work production.

On an aside, I think that declining fertility may be because humans, as a species are overpopulated. It may be a genetic precaution, but it may be diet or any number of things. Truth is, the Earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population. That limit may be overtaxed and hence the declining poplations.

On what basis do you make the claim that the earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population? And what is the earth's limit if there is one? What if the world population goes over that limit? Should humans intervene somehow to bring the population back down?


I make it on the basis that there will not be enough resources at some point in the future. I am merely stating that perhaps genetics are evolving to decrease fertility because of this staggering population we have now. Overpopulation is a big problem. I am not the first or last person to realize this.

Eilish
by on Sep. 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM


Quoting Stefanie1085:


Quoting Eilish:


Quoting Stefanie1085:

I'm at a loss to undertand why China's declining populations would  affect American's consumption rates. Because they won't have enough people to work production? Personally, I am all for the US being more self sufficient.

Mainly because they won't have the people to work production.

On an aside, I think that declining fertility may be because humans, as a species are overpopulated. It may be a genetic precaution, but it may be diet or any number of things. Truth is, the Earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population. That limit may be overtaxed and hence the declining poplations.

On what basis do you make the claim that the earth cannot continue to support a rapidly increasing population? And what is the earth's limit if there is one? What if the world population goes over that limit? Should humans intervene somehow to bring the population back down?


I make it on the basis that there will not be enough resources at some point in the future. I am merely stating that perhaps genetics are evolving to decrease fertility because of this staggering population we have now. Overpopulation is a big problem. I am not the first or last person to realize this.

I guess what I am asking for is some scholarly reference to substantiate a relavent concern that the earth is somehow running out of resources, as opposed to a hunch (no offense.) And as far as genetics are concerned, I know China has limits on how many children the people can have. So their decline can't be from natural causes.

Many people think overpopulation is a myth.

Eilish
by on Sep. 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Compare these fertility rates with which countries offer UHC..


Stefanie1085
by Silver Member on Sep. 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM

I know this is a blog but it covers some overpopulation and overconsumption problems:

The Ecological Toll of Food Production

This whole argument would be moot, however, if the level of ecological damage from food production was insignificant. It's obvious that this is not the case.  Consider the following laundry list of ecological damage related to food production:

  • The number of oceanic "dead zones" caused by eutrophication from fertilizer runoff has been doubling every ten years since the 1960s.
  • Predatory fish species (the ones we eat) have declined by 90% in the last 50 years.  This is due to our over-fishing the oceans for food.
  • The estimated extinction rate of plants and animals is at least 75 species per day. This is mainly the result of habitat loss due to human encroachment and the expansion of agriculture.
  • Over 75,000 square miles of arable land is lost each year to urbanization and desertification.
  • A billion people in over 110 countries are affected by desertification.  Agriculture was the main reason for the desertification that has reduced the cradle of civilization in the Middle East and North Africa from lush, fertile lands to the barren sands we see today.
  • On the American Great Plains, half the topsoil has been lost in the last hundred years, and the Ogallala aquifer is being drained up to 100 times faster than it is being refilled.
  • Indian farmers have drilled over 21 million water wells using oil-well technology. They take 200 billion tonnes of water out of the earth each year for irrigation.

Every one of these and similar impacts is directly proportional to the number of people we are trying to feed.

Of course there are ecological problems like climate change that are more dependent on consumption levels than on population numbers.  However, a significant subset of our ecological problems can be attributed to agriculture, and through that door those problems can be laid directly at the feet of our growing population numbers.

Overshoot

A species is said to be in overshoot if the resource requirements of its population exceed the carrying capacity of its environment — in other words, its needs exceed the ability of its environment to supply those needs sustainably over the long term.  Humanity is already in overshoot, by at least 25% and perhaps by as much as 100% or more.  Because of that, only a reduction in population would help to redress the balance.  It would reduce the pressure on the planetary ecosystems we depend on and give them a chance to recover.  Unfortunately, there is no sign that our population will even stabilize within the next 40 years, let alone start to decline.

As a result, the ecological insults we are visiting upon Mother Earth will continue, and may even increase as the years go by.  For a species that is already in overshoot, this is a very ominous prediction.  As we run into resource limits such as Peak Oil, the underlying damage we have done will assume ever greater importance as our degradation of the world's carrying capacity is progressively revealed.

Conclusion

What can be done about this predicament?  Global population growth rates are declining, of course, and show every sign of continuing to do so.  As I have pointed out in other articles though, our growth rate will not decline fast enough to rescue our species from the ecological fires we have already started.  Programs of voluntary population reduction that might accelerate the necessary decline run head-on into the problems so elegantly described by the Prisoner's Dilemma game – nobody wants to risk getting the sucker's payoff, so nobody is prepared to be a front-runner in the race for less.

From a purely rhetorical perspective though, it remains a fact that there are aspects of our ecological difficulties that are strictly the result of our excessive numbers, and could be alleviated by reducing our population.  I hope that this article helps bring some clarity to the debate of consumption versus population as the underlying culprit – it's transparently clear they are both to blame.

Source: http://paulchefurka.ca/Population%20and%20Food%20Production.html  

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)