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.

 

Natural Decrease: More deaths than births

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Putin Signs Law Banning Abortion Ads as It Decimates Russia’s Population
www.lifenews.com...




Russia’s population has indeed been decimated by abortion and its use as birth control.

A foreign policy expert says Russia is falling apart culturally because as much as two percent of the nation’s potential population is victimized by abortion every year. Ilan Berman says Russia’s population implosion may also cause problems for the United States and present worldwide issues.

The reality is that Russia continues to bleed population. For about a decade and a half now, projections have been that Russia’s population will plummet from 140-150 million to 104 million by 2050. What are the chief causal factors in this? There are several, but among the biggest is abortion, which occurs in Russia at an astonishingly high level. Putin has tried to slow the hemorrhage, but has failed to do so.

Abortion was legalized in Russia by the Bolsheviks shortly after they seized power in October 1917. Vladimir Lenin made good on his promise for an “unconditional annulment of all laws against abortion.” In short order, the number of abortions skyrocketed. By 1934, Moscow women were having three abortions for every live birth. The toll was so staggering that an appalled Joseph Stalin, the mass murderer, actually banned abortion in 1936, fearing a vanishing populace.


China to ditch its one-child policy as ageing crisis looms
China's new leaders are close to abandoning the country's one-child policy, belatedly moving to avert an ageing crunch as the work force goes into sharp decline.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Back in the states

Illinois' Natural Decrease: More deaths than births in more than half of state's counties

Read more: www.sj-r.com...

In another article about China,
www.nationalreview.com...


To say that China has “relaxed” or “eased” its one-child policy under these circumstances is entirely unwarranted. Furthermore, all the reasons given for this adjustment are economic or demographic: China’s dwindling labor force, the country’s growing elderly population, and the severe gender imbalance. The adjustment is a tacit acknowledgement that continuation of the one-child policy will lead to economic and demographic disaster.


I wonder what impact this will make on society in the future.

We reap what we sow.




posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Social Security Administration, Guttmacher Institute, and National Center for Health Statistics, if abortion had never been legalized in 1973, more than 17 million people would be employed, resulting in an additional $400 billion from those workers, with $11 billion contributed to Medicare and $47 million contributed to Social Security. Although it is important to also reduce government spending, these added incomes would nevertheless help the country.

It doesn’t take a world-renowned economist to figure out that when you’re decreasing the youth from abortion and with all the baby-boomers retiring, Social Security is going to eventually run out if we continue with abortions and the amount of spending by the federal government. Even though Social Security cannot last forever with the amount of federal spending today, not having abortion would help Social Security last longer, assuming that the amount of federal spending is the same.

In population studies, at least 2.1 kids per household are needed to maintain stable population. The average number of kids per household today is about 2.0 in this country, which isn’t even meeting the replacement level of 2.1 needed to maintain the population for future generations to come. The slow growth in the United States population seen in recent years is due to immigration and people living longer.

This a problem not only in America, but also around the world, especially for many countries in Europe that have even fewer children per household. During the 1990s is when Europe found a sharp decline in birth rates, with Southern and Eastern Europe’s plummeting below 1.3 kids per household. Worldwide, birthrates have decreased from 6.0 in 1972 to about 2.9 nowadays.


www.lifenews.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Is Negative Population Growth Upon Us? Deaths Exceed Births in One Third of U.S. Counties





With the expectation that the world’s population will stabilize mid-century, eventually every country’s population – with few exceptions in Africa and elsewhere – will stop increasing. Deaths will exceed births in most countries, and future growth may become more a function of shifting migration patterns.

This reality can already be seen in parts of the United States. In one third of the 3,141 counties deaths now exceed births. In the next nine years, the number of counties in this category will expand, which could result in a markedly lower population count in the 2020 census. In contrast, a number of counties continue to experience significant natural rate of increase, and a handful of places experience the triad of dynamic change: births exceeding deaths, immigration, and positive net migration from other parts of the USA.


I don't know what impact negative population growth will have on future generations.


darrowmillerandfriends.com...

Turning Out the Lights in Japan: Negative Population Growth
Posted on October 3, 2013 by admin

A few years ago, after I finished a lecture in Tokyo a Japanese physician came up to me and announced, “We are turning out the lights in Japan!”

I sensed what he meant but asked him to elaborate. “We are shutting down labor and delivery rooms in hospitals, doctors are no longer going into OBGYN and pediatric specialties. We are closing schools. Japanese are no longer having children. We are turning out the lights in Japan.”

Sadly, this is not only true of Japan. The same thing is happening in Europe. The difference? Europe admits immigrants, and the immigrants are having babies. Families of European extraction are not having children.






posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


a few realities :

1 - banning abortion will not lead to population rises - people have abortions because they do not want children

2 - the need for massive populations and a high birth rate are suplerulous in a modern industrial country

3 - you cannot force people to breed [ at least not ethically ]



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This is wonderful news IMO. The earth has limited resources and there is a limit to how many people this world can sustain in a future that projects out past 2050.

Negative Population growth would be a wonderful thing, I think the ideal earth population is somewhere around 5 billion people.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
It's a balancing act, and mostly a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda deal.

You can't reduce the fertility rate too much, for too long or there are obvious imbalances within society.

You can't have too high of fertility, for too long, either!

The best we can hope is to have a stabilization, and slow decline in developing countries, but even then I think we're screwed due.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

webedoomed
The best we can hope is to have a stabilization, and slow decline in developing countries, but even then I think we're screwed due.

The problem is always going to be that we just don't have a good handle on what exactly is a good human population level that can be optimally supported both economically and ecologically. I'm not looking for the maximum number of people that the Earth can sustain. I'm shooting for the optimum number of people to have on the planet so that the ecological systems can repair themselves, while at the same time giving people enough room and freedom and employment and quality/enjoyment of life.

Optimum as opposed to maximum.

At this point, we don't know enough about the Earth and what the affect the average person has on it. I always thought that the most people the Earth should have on it would be approximately the population in the year 1900, which was about 1.6 billion. Enough people to keep employed and fed, not enough to seriously damage the environment.


edit on 24-12-2013 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


When all you hear from every "expert" and "news source" pertaining to the future of humanity points to overpopulation, increases in disease and critical decreases in food, water availability,
along with pollution, deforestation, mass species die offs and global natural resource exhaustion.

How is a decreased global birth rate a worrisome crisis?

Seems to me like a positive solution!


edit on 24-12-2013 by grubblesnert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


I like your reasoning.

The carrying capacity is influenced by standards of living. I don't think a fixed value can be set in stone.

1.6 billion seems to be a reasonable number, but I think it may be more accurate to say x number of people at y standards of living. It really depends on what the species is after for the future. Do we require billions of peons to support the higher standards of living of the "elite" (which you could argue everyone in the US is elite compared to the global average) ? Does not near-term advancements in technology negate the need for so many slave workers?

It's fairly complex, but overall the static number is more of a goal, but the means to get there is more the focus of this thread. Is it best to grow, sustain, or decline, and at what rate. I stand by the first need to sustain, then decline, but think this easy way is unattainable. I think the rate of overshoot and time that it has been allowed has set in stone a correction mechanism by nature... ie, a dieoff is in order.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Thanks for all the post, and I can see all sides of the issue, obviously we cannot predict the future and there are many scenarios,

It did come to mind, considering our attempt at immigration reform, has this immigration reform due to the fact that thirty years down the road we may need these people to sustain us?

I probably wont be here.
edit on 013131p://bTuesday2013 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I didn't know there was actually an organization

www.npg.org...




What NPG Stands For

NPG is a national non-profit membership organization founded in 1972. Our primary purpose is to educate the American public and elected officials regarding the damaging effects of overpopulation on our nation’s environment, resources, and quality of life. NPG advocates a smaller, truly sustainable United States population accomplished through smaller families and lower, more traditional immigration levels.

Our goal is to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth – eventually stabilizing at a size that is sustainable over the long term. The optimal population of approximately 150-200 million people (our nation’s size in 1970, which scientists agree was sustainable for our resources) will allow us to protect our fragile ecosystems, conserve our finite resources, and ensure a livable America for future generations. (To read a detailed explanation of NPG’s solutions, read our Proposed National Population Policy or our Statement of Purpose.)

NPG promotes our mission through a wide variety of educational and outreach programs.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Population decreases in a country is solved with controlled immigration.
Just like overpopulation can be solved with people migrating to countries that have extra space.

Canada has had a declining birth rate for years, and we have decent controlled immigration standards so we don't run out of people. Currently, I think it's mostly China and the Phillipines that most of our immigrants come from.

It's just too expensive looking after children properly, to have birth rates keep up to death rates



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Nowyouseeme
This is wonderful news IMO. The earth has limited resources and there is a limit to how many people this world can sustain in a future that projects out past 2050.

Negative Population growth would be a wonderful thing, I think the ideal earth population is somewhere around 5 billion people.


I knew environmentalists would absolutely love this news.

You do realize the earth will be homosapien free within 500 years or less if current trends continue according to population experts.

Yes the extinction of the human race will free the earth from all the evils wrought by filthy, polluting, animal killing humans.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Now why did I read "More Deaths than Birds"?

Now it's clear to me haha did anyone see the movie idiocracy?




edit on 24-12-2013 by Dumbass because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

webedoomed
It's a balancing act, and mostly a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda deal.

You can't reduce the fertility rate too much, for too long or there are obvious imbalances within society.

You can't have too high of fertility, for too long, either!

The best we can hope is to have a stabilization, and slow decline in developing countries, but even then I think we're screwed due.


True, the human race is screwed. We have convinced people that having children is too much of an economic burden. We have also infantilized our young adults to the point where they don't want to be bothered getting up in the middle of the night to feed and change diapers, nor do they want to give up their money to raise a child and put one through college. There is no incentive for young adults to have children at all, so many don't bother and magazines articles abound shouting the joys of childlessness.

We can not back track on abortion at this point, it is far too late. We can not back track on the media suggesting that homosexuality is a preferred lifestyle and the coolest lifestyle for young adults. We can not back track on birth control. The majority of people just would no longer tolerate any attempt to do any of these things, and I myself am not sure we should.

The elite will sure have a wake up call with this one. Elite over whom? The housekeepers, groundskeepers, chauffeurs, waiters etc will all be long extinct.

So believe it or not the human race is going to face extinction sooner than later and there is no stopping it.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

grubblesnert
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


When all you hear from every "expert" and "news source" pertaining to the future of humanity points to overpopulation, increases in disease and critical decreases in food, water availability,
along with pollution, deforestation, mass species die offs and global natural resource exhaustion.

How is a decreased global birth rate a worrisome crisis?

Seems to me like a positive solution!


edit on 24-12-2013 by grubblesnert because: (no reason given)


Because it is not just a decrease we are headed toward extinction of the human race entirely. If current trends stay exactly as they are today, the human race will be extinct within 500 years. If the trend accelerates then the human race will be extinct long before that.

A positive for mother earth for sure!



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

snowspirit
Population decreases in a country is solved with controlled immigration.
Just like overpopulation can be solved with people migrating to countries that have extra space.

Canada has had a declining birth rate for years, and we have decent controlled immigration standards so we don't run out of people. Currently, I think it's mostly China and the Phillipines that most of our immigrants come from.

It's just too expensive looking after children properly, to have birth rates keep up to death rates


Ummmm, the countries with high birth rates also have high mortality and infant mortality rates. So eventually the supply of immigrants will run out. As the world become more educated and "informed" women will choose to have fewer children.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

grandmakdw
Ummmm, the countries with high birth rates also have high mortality and infant mortality rates. So eventually the supply of immigrants will run out. As the world become more educated and "informed" women will choose to have fewer children.

But when will this happen? Sooner or later? At the moment, world population is still zooming pretty much out of control toward the 8 billion mark. And if that trend should eventually reverse, then how long will it be before the population decreases enough to have a "shortage" of people on the planet?

My guess is not for a long, long time. Maybe by then we'll have a better handle on just how many people can live comfortably and economically on the planet (along with the billions of sentient robots running around).



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


we live in a zoo and our captive breeding program blows!



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Stormdancer777

China to ditch its one-child policy as ageing crisis looms
China's new leaders are close to abandoning the country's one-child policy, belatedly moving to avert an ageing crunch as the work force goes into sharp decline.


The interesting part was way back when I took a class on population it was known that population growth had little to do with birth rate but more with longevity. We live longer....that is about it. The problem we see in China, Japan and countries that limit births, or have high child fatalities, like in Africa, is they are ending up with an unhealthy and unsustainable society. A healthy society is one where roughly 20% are young, 50% are working age and 30% are old. The back bone is the working age, and what we are seeing is more along the lines of 5% to 10% young 20% to 30% working age and 70% plus old. This is what happens when you limit birth, you get an old society that ends up with the inability to work for themselves.

A couple of things need to happen, one is we raise the working age limit from 65 to 75, kind of sucks but people are not intended to live 30 40 50 years after they stop working, and 50 plus years ago that was about 5 to 10 years on an average. We also need to not limit births since we need to feed the working class constantly.





edit on 24-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join