Gays are born gay, I'm convinced of it.

[Az]

Really? Are your eyes open?

Cute. I guess that's the usual for anyone who gets into an arguement with you. this of course has nothing to do with the argument but still is cool.

Why do you equate "modernise" with "stop breeding"?

because that has happened with every country that has modernized?

Why aren't you taking into consideration the fact that one side-effect of modernisation is a longer lifespan in which we can work?

how does that matter, at all? if every generation would be smaller then the next one, the fact that people live slightly longer ( in a one time shift) matters only once, and that is when the life-span shift occurs.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I can't spreak for Israel, but the population of Britain has never been higher. The worldwide population is soaring too. I think we are in no danger of impending extinction. In any event, not every "modernised" nation may share Western mores regarding modern family life.

People will still want to have kids, regardless of how modern they are. Some won't, but that's up to them.

[Az]

I can't spreak for Israel, but the population of Britain has never been higher. The worldwide population is soaring too. I think we are in no danger of impending extinction.

same here. It's not the same for a bunch of countries in europe. and it's not the same for Britain and Israel because of immigration.

In any event, not every "modernised" nation may share Western mores regarding modern family life.

even such a completely different nation as Japan suffers from the same sindroms. I don't think it's going to be different for any other nation.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

With Jordanian average birth rates at 3.7/female, and higher figures on the West Bank and Gaza, I think Israel has a ready-made solution to a falling population.

[Az]

hardy har har. Israel currently has no problem with demographics, unlike europe, but that's too because of people who're living in closed, unmodern microcosms, the religious jews, and the muslims.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel
I am really saddened that you so light-heartly talk about your species' demise.

Extintion is as natural as evolution.

And you still didn't answer my point. Are you simply advocacting child birth as is, or is your real intention to procreate in net positive numbers? Because the "complete" human experience of having one child is exactly the same as having none in the very long run.

[molly bloom]

I can think of a few places that could do with a lower birth rate, Azazel- Mexico City (20 000 000 inhabitants, more than many nation states) Cairo-Giza-Imbaba (most populous metropolitan area on the African continent) Mumbai, Djakarta, Karachi, Lagos (Nigeria), Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and so on and so on. The human race is in no imminent danger of extrinction- the way you talk you make it seem as though we're down to the last clutch of viable humans, like lonely passenger pigeons or thylacines. If we continue reproducing, then competition (read war) for resources such as potable drinking water will grow more intense- with countries such as Turkey or Malaysia or India or Nepal or Armenia or Georgia acting to dam river flows and 'conserve' water for their own populations. The damage done to existing previously untouched eco-systems by human pressure in Indonesia, South America, Borneo, India is already severe. Guaranteeing a healthier life for the inhabitants of those countries would free women from lives of virtual servitude to their reproductive systems (the women work twice over- frequently earning an income in a low paid job, whilst 'laying down' insurance in the form of children instead of old age pensions) enabling them to have more fulfilled lives.

I think you've possibly read John Wyndham's 'Consider Her Ways' and accepted that as a blue print for future humanity. Or read 'the Handmaid's Tale' and mistaken it for reportage.

As for how many of the child free (not childless- how arrogant to assume that we need little parasites to complete our lives) are Michelangelos- well how many were who had offspring? Not all musical geniuses approach Bach's level- but then not all those who have children have as many as Bach, either.

If it comes to a choice (as it does, there being no compulsion, biological or otherwise on me to reproduce) I would rather leave 'Principia Mathematica' or breaking the Enigma Code to posterity, rather than just one more human to add to the billions already here.

[Ned]

molly, the obvious way to reduce the population boom in poor states is to provide for people in their old age. However, population reduction does seem to be a real problem in the so-called "modern" societies. We are even discussing in the United States, although our problem is somewhat masked by massive immigration. The demographics shift that is occuring here is caused by the so-called baby-boomers born in the two decades after WWII. They are now approaching retirement age. When they do, the Social Security system will fail unless something is done. If the same benefits continue to be given, the younger generation will be saddled with significantly higher taxes. We are facing a problem if not a crisis.

I suspect the same issues are appearing in Europe and Japan.

[mindseye]

Where did Drake Tungsten go?

[Az]

extinction is as natural as evolution.

death is as natural as life. I guess dying is ok, and we shouldn't prevent it.

And you still didn't answer my point. Are you simply advocacting child birth as is, or is your real intention to procreate in net positive numbers? Because the "complete" human experience of having one child is exactly the same as having none in the very long run.

my intention is to procreate in net positive numbers ( though very small, percentage-wise. less than a percent, at least until we get off this rock). Having kids is the localisation of that global issue.

molly:

I can think of a few places that could do with a lower birth rate, Azazel- Mexico City (20 000 000 inhabitants, more than many nation states) Cairo-Giza-Imbaba (most populous metropolitan area on the African continent) Mumbai, Djakarta, Karachi, Lagos (Nigeria), Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and so on and so on.

That's right! There is a pretty good common ground for all of those places: life in them, for the most of people, sucks green donkey balls. If we'd fix them, and I certainly hope that this is our intention, and that those places, sooner or later will rise to the level of todays modern societies, then we'll have the same problem with them, as well.

[Drake Tungsten]

Where did Drake Tungsten go?

To a soccer tournament...

[Ben Kenobi]

and working class people with large families tend to be unable to give their kids proper education, health care, etc. It might be less important a factor in Canada and other Western states with more comprehensive social services

Ramo:

That to me says that the system is at fault and not the high birthrate.

When we, who proclaim we believe in freedom, prohibit them from entering our states, that is an unacceptably act of hypocrisy.

I argue with your terminology of an obligation. The US or Canada are not obligated to allow anyone into the country. In the case of a refugee, it depends on the actual conditions of the country that they flee, not their perceived 'oppression'. There are some very strict regulations as to who qualifies as a refugee.

Now, as for regular immigration, do you argue that a state has an obligation to accept everyone who wants to come?

I actually agree with you against immigration restrictions, but what I do not agree with this sense of obligation. We do so as a gift, not because we have to let them in.

The high birth rates primarily arise from lack of freedom for women, in particular with regards to contraceptives and abortion, as well as professional opportunities. Development and with it education gives women liberty and therefore less kids to deal with.

So a modern country must have such things as legalised abortion in order to develop? I'm sorry, I don't buy into that argument. I would argue that a country cannot develop without a labour source, as in the West during the Industrial age. The increase in population first started to take off during the period, allowing for a sustained growth in both consumption and production of goods.

In arguing that a country needs to limit population, they are in essence destroying their future production capacity. Look at the Soviet Union. This will be the fate of China in 30 years due to the demographics.

[Ben Kenobi]

my intention is to procreate in net positive numbers ( though very small, percentage-wise. less than a percent, at least until we get off this rock). Having kids is the localisation of that global issue.

Two questions. Would you be shocked if I said your policy would dramatically decrease our drive to get into space? Why would we have any reason to go somewhere else if there were plenty of space here?

Secondly, how would you enforce such a policy to limit children? Same as China? Harsh penalties on families with 3 children, and harsh penalties on bachelors?

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't spreak for Israel, but the population of Britain has never been higher. The worldwide population is soaring too. I think we are in no danger of impending extinction. In any event, not every "modernised" nation may share Western mores regarding modern family life.

Laz:

That's due to immigration. Britain's birthrate is under replacement. In fact, by 2050, the UN predicts the world population to start declining.

The actual growth rate in world population is dropping, in fact much of the current growth in population has to do with reductions in infant mortality rather than increases in fertility.

[Mr. Harley]

It may be the chicken before the egg. It has been statistically shown that you once you improve infant mortality, then the birth rate drops. Putting people in urban environments drops it more, as does given women reproductive rights.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Azazel
my intention is to procreate in net positive numbers ( though very small, percentage-wise. less than a percent, at least until we get off this rock). Having kids is the localisation of that global issue.

Sorry but I still consider this quite absurd. You are saying the world needs more people than it has now? What is the problem with the world stabilizing, say, at 1 billion people instead of the 6+ that we have now? It says nothing about extintion, simply a more manageable number, thus procreating in negative net numbers isn't necessarily bad.

Who cares if the net increase is .000001%. How is that any practically different from a net decrease of .999999%?

I have still yet to see the economic and social benefits of increasing the population more than it is already which is why I don't think any argument advocating an net worldwide increase in population is sound.