Danes offered child-free 'copulation time'

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
In an effort to combat Denmark drop in the number of children being born, kindergarten staff on the island of Fyn have offered parents two hours of free childcare to allow parents to stay at home and make more children.


"Quality copulation time" is an attempt to combat Denmark's low birth rate and growing population of elderly people. The country ranks 185th on the birth-performance list of the world's 221 countries.

The kindergarten was one of seven Danish nurseries offering free "copulation time" on Thursday. Ms Nyman said that if the project proved successful, her kindergarten would make its Thursday offer a regular service.

The Independent

Danish women only have an average of 1.74 children, while the replacement rate to merely maintain population numbers is 2.1 in the West.

The average children per women around the world (based on CIA Factbook figures) include

Pakistan____3.07
India_______2.58
USA________2.05
France______2.08
UK_________1.91
Brazil_______1.82
Australia____1.77
Denmark____1.74
Russia______1.64
China_______1.55
Germany____1.41
Italy________1.4
Japan_______1.39
Spain_______1.48

It is of interest that three current heavy weights, Russia, China and Japan face a hugely graying population and effective population collapse, resulting in diminished geopolitical influence in the future. Pakistan and India in contrast are growing rapidly.

The USA and France are of interest in that a significant proportion of births are to immigrant mothers, a situation mirrored in the UK with its large immigrant population.

Both the USA and the UK appear to have pursued a policy of large scale immigration in an attempt to maintain and expand population numbers.




posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
There aren't enough people in the world?

I happen to think any rate below 2 is promising. Population doesn't need to expand exponentially once you've reached a certain level. The trick isn't to increase your own rate but decrease others below yours or put a greater investment to those that you have.

1 highly educated well fed and well raised child is worth 10 uneducated near starving children whose parents are forced to ignore them for slave labor jobs.

With that said I would definitely be down for some child free copulation time but would just sneak some birth control in there!



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
There aren't enough people in the world?

I happen to think any rate below 2 is promising.

1 highly educated well fed and well raised child is worth 10 uneducated near starving children whose parents are forced to ignore them for slave labor jobs.


A problem is that in countries with collapsing populations, too few people will be working in the future to support the old.

For instance, three quarters of all Japanese and one half of all Europeans will be elderly dependents by 2050 if current trends continue (Source: Goldman, D.P. (2011) How civilizations die.).








edit on 16-9-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord

1 highly educated well fed and well raised child is worth 10 uneducated near starving children whose parents are forced to ignore them for slave labor jobs.


Because rich people are always better than poor people.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Heh... I do thinl we danes still posses humor :-)

At the end of the day 100 parents used the day as offered and had their child taken care of for those hours.

But it wasnt so much an effort to turn the general population numbers around as it was to ensure they still have a job in 2-3 years. This was a specific problem to that area of Fyn.... Too much day care too few children :-) just goes to show how freaking boring there is at that part of denmark hehe.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Because rich people are always better than poor people.


Rich people are better at feeding their children.

Overall however, in agricultural societies children are an economic asset. This results in people in poorer countries having lots of kids to help with the manual labor and to look after them in their old age.

In the affluent West, children are an economic liability. People in the West expect to be supported by the state when they are older, while kids cost a lot of money. The result is that people have fewer kids.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor

Originally posted by Jinglelord

1 highly educated well fed and well raised child is worth 10 uneducated near starving children whose parents are forced to ignore them for slave labor jobs.


Because rich people are always better than poor people.


I wouldn't say always but as was mentioned rich people are indeed better at feeding their children.

Rich children have what is called an advantage. They may or may not use it but they do have it. Proper nutrition lends itself to better brain development and overall health. A childhood free of worry about where dinner will come from allows for more concentration on scholastic studies. Not to mention private tutors and better education that money can buy. All of this doesn't mean success is a foregone conclusion anymore than it means success is out of the reach of one who does not have these advantages but the odds are distinctly stacked.

This wasn't my point anyway. Regardless of the level of wealth fewer children mean a greater parental investment in the ones they do have. Wealthy could in theory sustain more successful children but this is seldom the case. Basic mathematics suggests that is you have limited time and resources (generally the case unless you've mastered time manipulation and are infinitely wealthy) you would need to allocate these resources between your children. If you have fewer children the resources would be greater per child.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Because rich people are always better than poor people.


Rich people are better at feeding their children.


You mean to say they have better access to food.



Overall however, in agricultural societies children are an economic asset. This results in people in poorer countries having lots of kids to help with the manual labor and to look after them in their old age.


That's a bit of an old sociology theory that has never been proven. Most societies had the elder insurance placed on the back of the eldest child, as they were the inheritor of family assets. The others had to fend for themselves. Other common theories are education (or lack there of) and infant mortality rates.

Why do the poor have more children? Nobody really knows. They just do.



In the affluent West, children are an economic liability. People in the West expect to be supported by the state when they are older, while kids cost a lot of money. The result is that people have fewer kids.


This is sort of true (see above link), but the state-support argument has only been true for the past 50 years (again see above about pre-SS fertility rates). In developing nations, where there is no social insurance, the child-birth rate has also been declining. In fact, the global birthrate is on a general decline. Some of us will hit a point-of-no-return before others.

For example, this World Bank report does cite children as their social safety net because an adequate government solution does not exist; it also points out that there has been a decline in the fertility rate of the Haitian population.

The World Bank then punts and attributes the decline to an increase in education, but it has done little to affect the overall poverty situation.

I could go on about the abnormal population growth in Utah among Mormons and the decline among Catholics despite the similar religious views on abortion and contraception, but I think my point has been made:

The population of the human race is declining. Unless civilizations maintain a 2.3 fertility ratio your civilization is doomed. At about 1.4 it takes 100-years to get back a 2.3 fertility rate.

So what's that again about the rich and poor?
edit on 16-9-2012 by GreenGlassDoor because: Fixing the quote



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
 


Thanks for that. That was an interesting post.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Holy epic reply to wrong thread batman!
edit on 16-9-2012 by danj3ris because: Replies to wrong thread. too many open tabs.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
It is of interest that three current heavy weights, Russia, China and Japan face a hugely graying population and effective population collapse, resulting in diminished geopolitical influence in the future. Pakistan and India in contrast are growing rapidly.


Just to post my observations over the past few decades.

China has had their 1 Child policy going. Do they really need more people? Russia's population has been on a steady decline going back a few decades and as some Western countries have been doing is to allow more and more immigrants into their country. A large percentage are Muslims. India/Pakistan have always had large populations {Relatively speaking}


The USA and France are of interest in that a significant proportion of births are to immigrant mothers, a situation mirrored in the UK with its large immigrant population.


The US was been founded on immigrants. No surprise there. As far as France, well they too have been trying to bolster their numbers as well.


Both the USA and the UK appear to have pursued a policy of large scale immigration in an attempt to maintain and expand population numbers.


That is interesting for the UK, but that has been going on there since the 1970s as for the US, again, A nation of immigrants.

Nothing new there.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The CIA is keeping track of us isn't that special.
If they left us alone like JFK wanted the world would be a lot better off.
Whatever happened to the Illuminati keeping track of the population explosion
and finding a war for us to fight to depopulate the world. The Illuminati must
have been concerned we would not have enough food to eat perhaps.
So now we have Illuminati payouts to have a good time.
If the Illuminati didn't make life suck in the first place with their lies we
feel children could live a suck free life after age seven.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
There aren't enough people in the world?

I happen to think any rate below 2 is promising. Population doesn't need to expand exponentially once you've reached a certain level. The trick isn't to increase your own rate but decrease others below yours or put a greater investment to those that you have.

1 highly educated well fed and well raised child is worth 10 uneducated near starving children whose parents are forced to ignore them for slave labor jobs.

With that said I would definitely be down for some child free copulation time but would just sneak some birth control in there!


And I would be down for people like you being thrown in jail, but we can't always get what we want. People need to learn to mind their own business.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


well the problem is, the people who have no business reproducing, are doing so in large numbers.

And the people who should be reproducing (intelligent, can afford to raise a child) are not reproducing in large numbers.

nothing sickens me more than welfare baby factories who only want the free social assistance and could care less about raising quality children.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
they are gonna have to keep mine longer than two hours for me to forget enough to want to copulate for reproduction again






new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join