Is this a sign of population reduction?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Oneolddude
 


The reason why China has no women anymore is because of their one child policy and their culture, thats why theres about 40 million missing women in china that they cant account for. However i dont think it applies anywhere else
Lowering infertility rates will become evident in time when my generation starts reproducing, and the generation after us is going to have a very hard time.
Hence why i think the global population will decrease. haha




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 





So, how do all "population reduction methods" jive with the fact that the world population continues to increase every year, rather than decrease?


You have to actually look at the birth rate not the population increase.
The maintainance level for the population is a birth rate of 2.1

The USA has a birth rate of 1.3 Link
France 1.3
UK - 1.1
Canada - 1.0
Germany - 0.8
Switzerland - 0.9
Greece - 0.9
Georgia - 1.0
China - 1.4
Paraguay - 2.8


Darn I can not find my reference. Any way there was a report published where the scientist doing a follow-up study expressed his surprise because of the birthrate decrease ACROSS THE BOARD in one African country. City dwellers are expected to have a lower birth rate but the farming community unexpectedly ALSO had the same low birth rate! (sterilization???)
Niger - 5.2
Cambodia - 2.5
Hong Kong - 0.7

57% or 129 of the 224 countries are below the 2.1 benchmark. Link

Those above 2.1 are mostly in Africa.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Population spikes? Population rates are cyclical?

Maybe in pre-modern man that is correct. But that doesn't make sense in modern history.

I could be wrong, but that all just doesn't make sense to me.


Of course it's cyclical. Look at it this way:

1950s-60s = Huge number of babies born due to ending of the war, so population spikes

1960s-80s = Smaller number of children born, as most families are raising the babies they had post-war

1980s-90s = Children of baby boomers are "of age" and begin having their own children, causing a spike in birth rate (and thus the rate of population change)

Late 1990s-2010ish = Fewer children born as children born in 80s and 90s are still growing

2010-2020s = Probably another birth/rate spike as children born in 80s and 90s start creating their own families.

See the cycle now? A constant back and forth. Populations always do this, especially following wars (and good luck finding a generation that didn't have a war). I know, from my own anecdotal experience, most of my friends (born in the 80s) are just not starting families. It seems like all the women decided, en masse, to start procreating. Truly an interesting phenomenon.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Why do you need a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain population? Can you provide a source for that?

As for your nameless "African nation" suffering a population rate decrease, don't you think that might be due to war, famine, and disease, all of which are endemic in most of sub-Saharan Africa? It doesn't surprise me at all that there would be a drop in births there.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Just because there is a cycle in population growth dosent mean its not increasing at this moment in time.
From what your saying your saying that we are at a low in our cycle, am i correct?
At this point in time there are many people becoming infertile and infertility rates are increasing. There are also things in our environment that were not present before that also bring infertility upon a person.
As time works, things do not just happen instantly and we will see the effects of this infertility later on in the "cycle"
So this spike that you speak off will be less than normal and may even not come to pass because of this increase in infertility.
Before someone said something about momentum, we are in the momentum period now because the effects of this will not come to pass in the next 30 years at least.
Wether it is part of a conspiracy or not it is going to happen because of our modern day culture.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Oh geez, I can't believe you're still stuck on this cyclical thing. I got news for you NOT EVERYONE GETS PREGNANT AT THE SAME AGE. That means, even if a population surge came about within a few years (as in post-ww2), in each successive generation there will be a widening gap in this spike. Eventually, they "cycle" will cease to exist. It's a temporary factor that appears to be cyclic. On the whole, it doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


I've noticed many of my friends aren't able to have a baby cause of low sperm count, and I noticed this cause my parents have mentioned how men now a days can't make a baby without getting help from a clinic.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
pity... there's the old song stuck in my head from " The Meaning Of Life" by Monty Python.... every sperm is sacred... lol. Funny how no one's mentioning that exciting time of involuntary sterilization by the US government a few decades back we named 'eugenics'. One dignitary was quoted as saying 'three generations of idiots is quite enough'. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with this view, and with a well honed scapel we could correct many errors before they multiply... but then, there have been some truely great minds that came from less than pedigree stock.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Of course it's cyclical. Look at it this way:

1950s-60s = Huge number of babies born due to ending of the war, so population spikes

1960s-80s = Smaller number of children born, as most families are raising the babies they had post-war

See the cycle now?


No, I don't.

Granted, certain economic, political and societal events/changes can effect population, but they are not 'cyclical,' they are random events.

If someone is born in 1950, by 1970 they are fully capable of having a child of their own - so why would there be a smaller number of children born? There wouldn't.

Births are not cyclical, they are constant.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Maybe they are implementing reduction programs in those continents too.. Especially as these countries are becoming more and more westernised alot of these products are widely available now.. Eg. Coca cola, mcdonalds, burger king, kfc etc...if there was something in the food, or drinks... These products are available and quite popular in almost every nation on earth..


If there was population control in Africa and Asia then it doesn't work very well. I think our modern diet and lifestyle (sitting on our arse all day and doing no exercise for starters) is what is causing this decline in fertility. The evils of food additives and sugar replacements (sorbitol is just as bad as aspartame) should be enough to wake us up to what we need to eat. Meat, fresh veg and fruit. Simples. Stay away from grains, processed food and too much dairy (hard for me as i looove ice cream and drink milk like a newborn calf). Oh, and go commando - better yet stark bollicky naked, let the little fellas swing in the breeze!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I got news for you NOT EVERYONE GETS PREGNANT AT THE SAME AGE.


Can you show me where I said everyone gets pregnant at the same age? I'd hate for you to be caught putting words in my mouth in an attempt to support an incredibly weak conspiracy.

When you look at a population and find the average age of primigravida (first pregnancy) for that entire group, you will then see a birth spike in the population in the years surrounding that average age. This isn't rocket science, it's basic math. There's a reason you see spikes on birth rates every twenty years or so. That's how long it takes THE AVERAGE PERSON of that generation to reach reproductive age and give birth. AVERAGE. Not all, but AVERAGE.


Eventually, they "cycle" will cease to exist. It's a temporary factor that appears to be cyclic. On the whole, it doesn't exist.


Really? It's "temporary" when it exists for several generations?

You should also look into fertility rate, by the way. The birth rate naturally lowers as nations become urbanized, because families typically have fewer children (don't need fieldhands anymore). This is a common phenomenon seen in all developing nations.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   


Granted, certain economic, political and societal events/changes can effect population, but they are not 'cyclical,' they are random events.


There are plenty of economists who would laugh at your suggestion that such events are "random". Economics, just like politics, is cyclical. There is always an upswing and downturn, bull versus bear and so on. These trends are inherently tied to birth and fertility rate.


If someone is born in 1950, by 1970 they are fully capable of having a child of their own - so why would there be a smaller number of children born? There wouldn't.


You don't think the culture changed from 1950 to 1970? Have you ever heard of this phenomenon called the "suburban migration" in America? People moved from small towns to urban and suburban areas in the 1950s and 60s (when the Eisenhower interstate project made it easier). The resulting families were typically smaller because there was less need for large families (no fields to work).

It's a very common and very well-studied sociological phenomenon, and quite an interesting read if you want to research it.

Births are not cyclical, they are constant.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Low male fertility would explain why it took 86 times, to make only 3 babies. This could be a good thing, or a bad thing, somebody else shall make that decision.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I got news for you NOT EVERYONE GETS PREGNANT AT THE SAME AGE.


Can you show me where I said everyone gets pregnant at the same age? I'd hate for you to be caught putting words in my mouth in an attempt to support an incredibly weak conspiracy.


You implied this.


Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
When you look at a population and find the average age of primigravida (first pregnancy) for that entire group, you will then see a birth spike in the population in the years surrounding that average age. This isn't rocket science, it's basic math. There's a reason you see spikes on birth rates every twenty years or so. That's how long it takes THE AVERAGE PERSON of that generation to reach reproductive age and give birth. AVERAGE. Not all, but AVERAGE.


This reasoning is incorrect. You're thinking linearly and not laterally. In each generation, each individual has a window to become pregnant. There is an average age to first become pregnant, but it's actually irrelevant. Either you get this or you don't. The more generations that pass, the more this becomes apparent. Want proof? Okay, just look to these spikes you speak of. I'm willing to bet everything I've got that they become less pronounced as time goes on.



Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


Eventually, they "cycle" will cease to exist. It's a temporary factor that appears to be cyclic. On the whole, it doesn't exist.


Really? It's "temporary" when it exists for several generations?


Yes. I trust you can think in longer time frames than a few generations.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Lets hope something is being done to reduce fertility and thereby slow the growth of the population.

The planet is already overpopulated, and more people is definitely not the answer.


its been done..

while the global population continues to increase, the fact is a to maintian population growth, each woman in the world NEEDS to give birth to at least 2 children to maintain a positive population

and the trend is currently at that and dropping fast(see graphs on previous page)

and as for the world being overpopulated, that is also incorrect. the world has plenty of land for both people and production of food. the problem is waste and resource abuse, not overpopulation.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Why do you need a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain population? Can you provide a source for that?

As for your nameless "African nation" suffering a population rate decrease, don't you think that might be due to war, famine, and disease, all of which are endemic in most of sub-Saharan Africa? It doesn't surprise me at all that there would be a drop in births there.


en.wikipedia.org...

look at the history of fertility rate from this wiki page

noticed the HUGE drop

news.bbc.co.uk...

BBC says no EU country with 2.1 birthrate is bad news


basically if a the average woman of the world does not give birth to at least 2 children, when she and her partner die, the world will be down 2 people

if a woman does give birth to at least 2 children, those children replace the woman and her partner when they die, maintaining the world population


again notice in the 1950's the world fertility rate was 4.8-4.9 that meant that the world population was increasing for every 2 people that died

once the fertility rate drops below 2, which it has in many countries, the population will show drastic decline as the elderly pass



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad


and as for the world being overpopulated, that is also incorrect. the world has plenty of land for both people and production of food. the problem is waste and resource abuse, not overpopulation.


A common reply from people who simply dont see the problem for what it actually is.

Overpopulation is about not having enough room for everyone, it's a problem in terms of how to support that number of people and the facts simply dont add up.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 





This is how population works, in essence, we will not feel the effect of this fertility decline for decades when, seemingly out of nowhere, populations will fall.


The birth rate, to maintain the population is 2.1 from the same website on 22-9-2009 chart

Today they report Total fertility rate (children born/woman) and say


Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.


So it looks like the same chart but updated.

HMMMMmmmmm, interesting.

Last year when I looked up this data I got the info listed on the left. Today's info is on the right.

The USA had a birth rate of 1.3 now: 2.06
(all those immigrants with high fertility rates have had a real impact it seems. - remember the census just took place and the old data may be from the old census from ten years ago)

France 1.3 now 1.97
UK - 1.1 now 1.92
Canada - 1.0 now 1.58
Germany - 0.8 now 1.42
Switzerland - 0.9 now 1.46
Greece - 0.9 now 1.37
Georgia - 1.0 now 1.44
China - 1.4 now 1.54
Paraguay - 2.8 now 2.16
Niger - 5.2 now 7.68
Cambodia - 2.5 now 2.9
Hong Kong - 0.7 now 1.04

A year ago 57% or 129 of the 224 countries were below the 2.1, benchmark now it is 112 countries are below the 2.1 benchmark.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by 3finjo
 


It's actually very difficult to avoid those foods if you live in a city.. Also with new laws like the one in America, which bans people from growing their own vegetables will make it almost impossible to avoid these foods and chemicals..
We are being poisoned daily, by people who only thing about profit, and unfortunately there isn't
Much we can do about it..



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon
Male fertility levels have plummeted in the last 50 years, a report claims. At least 1 in 5 men aged 18-25 on the continent has sub fertile sperm, the European science foundation reveals. The problem is contributing to low birth rates in many countries, it says "the timescale suggests this is caused by enviromental and lifestyle factors, not genetics. So this is preventable if we find the cause"

What is the cause? Is it the nwos plan at population reduction actively in effect now? Is their masterplan underway? And apparently working?
Thoughts please...

Its due to dumb human beings who continue to pollute their environment with chemicals that mimic oestrogen which feminises males.

Well known cause, well known solution but as usual too much money, big business and politics involved to do the right thing.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join