It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

End of human history

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Don't let the title scare you, this will happen in 3 thousand years if our current ways of reproduction don't change.




How long do countries have until their populations disappear?


As The Economist reports this week, many women in the richer parts of Asia have gone on “marriage strike”, preferring the single life to the marital yoke. That is one reason why their fertility rates have fallen. And they are not alone. In 83 countries and territories around the world, according to the United Nations, women will not have enough daughters to replace themselves, unless fertility rates rise. In Hong Kong, for example, a cohort of 1,000 women would be expected to give birth to just 547 daughters, at today’s fertility rates. (That gives Hong Kong a “net reproduction rate” of just 0.547, in the language of demographers.) If nothing changed, those 547 daughters would be succeeded by just 299 daughters of their own, and so on. At that rate, according to some back-of-the-envelope calculations by The Economist, it would take about 25 generations for Hong Kong’s female population to shrink from 3.75m to just one. Given that Hong Kong’s average age of childbearing is 31.4 years, it could expect to give birth to its last woman in the year 2798. (That is some time after its neighbour, Macau, which has a higher reproduction rate, but a much smaller population.) By the same unflinching logic, Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not see out the next millennium. Even China, which has a recorded history stretching back at least 3,700 years, has only about 1,500 years left—if present trends continued unbroken.


Source: The Economist

We should change our views that we as a species will live long and prosper because our birth rate is declining at an alarming state and my guess is that we will go extinct much earlier than this report predicts.
One of the main problem is that women have gone on some kind of marriage strike so most of them focus on their careers and jobs instead of focusing on having a family and kids and this trend is becoming more and more present in women nowdays.

Hope this changes because it would be a bummer for such a great species to go extinct because of such a stupid reason.




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
you're living in the wrong part of the world. My town is a cesspool of births. Half of my class totally got knocked up, if not after high school, it was during. Seriously. I think the birth rate is too high for New Mexico. Bunch of drunks and dumb people. All that's here is meth, a ridiculous amount of cop shootings, and reproduction.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The Economist is a Bilderberg Journal.

Here is a link for the attendees for the 2011 Bilderberg Meeting

bilderberg2011.com...< br />
You'll see that the Editor in Chief of the Economist was present.

2010 list

splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com...

Buisness Editor and Editor in chief of the Economist were present

2009 List

milfuegos.blogspot.com...

Editor in Chief of the Economist was present

Maybe there is a bit more to this than what they are saying?
edit on 23/8/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
babies are popping out everywhere. even if you dont have a child of your own, you see it all around you. upstairs, downstairs, nexdoor, at the grocery, its like mothers have a new baby (or twins, trips) every year like clockwork.

something i noticed here in the innercity, mothers as young as 16 and as old as approaching their 50s, really dont care about the reality that raising each child costs around a million in this economy.

why? because they put the burden on our tax dollars. we are working to pay for other peoples children. and even after that, 8000 kids still die of neglect/starvation in US, anyways.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Well that might be, but it doesn't take a genious to see that birth rate has decreased a lot over the past 50 years. I mean 1.3 children per family, taking into acount how many children from those will have children themselves and how many die before they even consider having a kid. Its sad .... Except for New Mexico ... as we learned from above


Seriously, there are a lot of countries that lose population just check for yourself ... and its not due to emigration ...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexIR
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Well that might be, but it doesn't take a genious to see that birth rate has decreased a lot over the past 50 years. I mean 1.3 children per family, taking into acount how many children from those will have children themselves and how many die before they even consider having a kid. Its sad .... Except for New Mexico ... as we learned from above


Seriously, there are a lot of countries that lose population just check for yourself ... and its not due to emigration ...


I'm not doubting it, just the reasons they are giving for it. They are the mouthpiece of the Bilderberg Group it appears. Why else would they be in attendance?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexIR
 


This applies only to those who seem to be educated and have access to tech.

I have read somewhere that the native population of Europe will be a minority by 2050 as they are being out bred by immigrants.


People living in poverty also tend to out reproduce wealthier people. It has always been that way.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Well if you consider it that way, 99% of the important news outlets are bilderberg mouthpieces ... I don't trust this completely either because its done by the nazis over at UN but its still an interesting read...

Oh and i don't think its meant to be bilderberg propaganda, it doesn't strike fear or anything its just a bunch of interesting numbers and probably meant to get people to have more kids. And don't tell me you see babies all over the place because for as long as i lived on this Earth ... the number of mothers i see with their kids is low ... for example 20 years ago you would have gotten mad because of the number of babies crying in the market ... and now ... silence ...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 






You are correct.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I initially disagreed with your initial post so went looking, firt things I found was this:


Total fertility rate

Info displayed for all countries in alpha order. This entry gives a figure for the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman. This indicator shows the potential for population change in the country. A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. 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.


Which backs up your post, I cot it from CIA - The World Factbook

I also found this on Wikipedia (I know, not the best source) which are actual TFR figures and future predicted TFR.


Years TFR Years TFR Years TFR
1950–1955 4.95 2000–2005 2.62 2050–2055 2.15
1955–1960 4.89 2005–2010 2.52 2055–2060 2.12
1960–1965 4.91 2010–2015 2.45 2060–2065 2.11
1965–1970 4.85 2015–2020 2.39 2065–2070 2.09
1970–1975 4.45 2020–2025 2.33 2070–2075 2.08
1975–1980 3.84 2025–2030 2.29 2075–2080 2.06
1980–1985 3.59 2030–2035 2.25 2080–2085 2.05
1985–1990 3.39 2035–2040 2.22 2085–2090 2.04
1990–1995 3.04 2040–2045 2.19 2090–2095 2.04
1995–2000 2.79 2045–2050 2.17 2095–2100 2.03


These figures also support the OP too. I have a question though; at what figure does the TFR need to reach in order for the worlds population to go into decline? Because despite the above two items, the world popultion is still growing and is still prediceted to grow:


World historical and predicted populations (in millions)
Region
1500 1600 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 1999 2008 2050 2150
World 458 580 682 791 978 1,262 1,650 2,521 5,978 6,707 8,909 9,746



So this discounts the above, any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AtlantisX99
 


The birth rate in western "modern" countries is lower but the one in "3rd world" countries gets higher because they do not have any form of birth control.

Star for you for the interesting numbers you have there.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join