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: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
It has been suggested that the growth rates around the world set in the 80s and 90s that showed us heading to 25 billion people in 100 years are greatly tapering off and even declining in many countries due to the cost of rearing children and just general views that have changed about what a family is or the importance of one.
edit on 24-12-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nowyouseeme
 


It has been Calculated by many leading Scientists , (Look them Up ) , that the Earth could Support a World Population of 9 Billion if the Land to Feed them was used more Efficently . 9 Billion is alot of People , but sometime in the Not To Distant Future Population Control will become Inevitable . The Enviormental Impact on other Life Forms on this Planet by Humans will eventually Destroy their Habitats to a point were Mass Exstinctions will result if this present Generation does not prepare to avert them . Birth Control in a Moral sense seems the most Logical way to go Right Now , No ?



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Isn't that what T.P.T.B. want to keep the population under 500 Million ?



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The way it is right now is unsustainable. Everything is just too expensive.
Eventually the population might decrease worldwide, the global economy will fail, and people, having to fend for themselves in a sparsely populated world will start having larger families again. Larger families means you have lots of farm hands around, like it used to be.

We're not going to go extinct because of having fewer kids now.
Provided we're not wiped out by an asteroid or something, it'll just go back to the way it was a couple of generations ago. Families of 8 or more.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Xtrozero
It has been suggested that the growth rates around the world set in the 80s and 90s that showed us heading to 25 billion people in 100 years are greatly tapering off and even declining in many countries due to the cost of rearing children and just general views that have changed about what a family is or the importance of one.

It's entirely possible that changes in the way some things are done could change the attitudes and behaviors of enough people to make a significant difference in population growth. Laws can be passed. Government programs can be instituted. People can figure out other ways of managing their old age so they don't have to rely on an industrious child to care for them. Our robotic overlords could sterilize us. Publicity and propaganda can make people realize that having children is not necessarily in their or the rest of the world's best interests.

It used to be common for people to spit tobacco everywhere. Now, not so much. So maybe people will change enough to avoid population control via war or pandemic.

I'll be long dead by then, so it doesn't matter to me.



posted on Dec, 25 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


The human race will be extinct in less than 500 years but more likely 300 years if current trends continue.
I foresee sentient robots as the next "race" to inhabit the world.

Why would sentient robots want to serve biologically and intellectually fragile and inferior biologicals that are selfish, want only to be served, destroy each other and the environment. They will either help us go extinct faster if they are "humane" by coddling us to the point we are so self centered that robots meet all our needs and wants and we do not desire "human" companionship; or they will actually eliminate us as a threat to the planet and themselves. It will probably be less than 20 years or so from now that robots will no longer need humans to build them, improve them, or write their programming.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Chinese one-child policy has already been relaxed and I think it is now, if one of the parents are from a one-child family themselves, they can have two kids.

It is not only the fact that the population is becoming skewed towards the old-age end of the scale, but also the skills of parenting are being lost. This is because currently and in the past during the one-child policy some kids get brought up by their grandparents in order to allow the parents to work.

Often children wait until they are older, finished their education and have a few years of work under their belt before sprogging. So, now that these grandparents are dying off, there are no parenting skills at the new grandparent level (the ones who were the parents).

Would you leave your kid with someone who had no experience at all of kids, I wouldn't.

It also means that there are fewer people to ask what to do in a 'crisis' and no support from the extended family members. Thats a scary situation for a prospective new mum when there is noone around to ask but official doctors/nurses/midwives.
edit on 29 Dec 2013 by qmantoo because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join