Italy, the latest country to enter era of human extinction

The world is now entering the final stage of population growth which will end very soon, we are at the cusp of human extinction if current trends continue.

Replacement rate for humans is a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman.

The birth rate among immigrants has fallen to 1.9 children per woman, its lowest level for five years. Overall, the number of couples choosing not to have children has increased to 40 per cent in the last decade. Italian women have 1.39 children on average, against an EU average of 1.58.

www.telegraph.co.uk... er.html

A recent simulation commissioned by the ROK National Assembly extrapolated current demographic trends – the average South Korean woman bears 1.25 children, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children – to show that the South Korean population will disappear by 2750. Japanese celebrations will be muted: the average fertility rate there is just 1.4 children per woman, meaning that the Japanese population will vanish around 3100. Japan will only outlast the ROK because its current population is almost twice that of the ROK.

nationalinterest.org...

Iran's birth rate is plummeting
legalinsurrection.com...

I. LOW FERTILITY Low fertility (defined in this report as total fertility of 2.0 children per woman or less) is fast becoming the norm for many countries in the world and is no longer a predominantly European phenomenon. Countries in parts of Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean are experiencing fertility levels that are below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman . Eastern Asia has become a region of especially low fertilit y, with total fertility of 1.4 children per woman or less in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ( SAR ) of China , Japan , Macao SAR of China , and the Republic of Korea . While 39 of the 70 low - fertility countries in 2005 - 2010 are in Europe, 16 are in Asia and 12 are in Latin America and the Caribbean (figure I.1 ) . Australia , Canada and Mauritius are the only low - fertility countries in Oceania , Northern America and Africa, respectively. The transition to low fertility is occurring at faster rates and at lower levels of development than was traditionally seen in Europe and North America during their fertility transitions , meaning that fertility rates are converg ing at a faster pace than the convergence of many other socio - e conomic characteristics (Kohler and others , 2002) . The re is concern in many countries that, without migration, a rapid fertility transition pose s serious challenges, including an expanding older population and a shrinking work force to pay for social services and pensions and to drive economic growth. As more countries experience sustained low fertility, it is important to understand how countries differ in their trajectories to ward low fertility and correlates of fertility change in order to inform effective policies that address the consequences of below - replacement fertility. At the time of the 1994 ICPD, 51 of today’s 70 low - fertility countries had fertility levels at 2.0 children per woman or less . This figure includes m ost low - fertility countries in Europe (figure I.2 ) , which had already reached replacement - level fertility prior to the 1990s ( Albania and the former Y ugoslav R epublic (TFYR) of Macedonia are exceptions to this pattern ) . I n Eastern Asia , most low - fertility countries also reached below - replacement fertility before 1994 , except in the Democratic People ’ s Republic of Korea . Persistently low levels of fertility increasingly characterize countries in Eastern Asia, and the region has replaced Europe as the “ global hotspot ” of low fertility (Sobotka , 2013). Central Asia, Western Asia and Lat in America and the Caribbean are emerging as new areas of low fertility.

www.un.org...


Overpopulation will soon cease to be a worry of humankind.

We are on the verge of a self correcting global issue.

Human extinction may not happen, but we will probably become very close.

This should make the environmentalists quite happy.

I find it extraordinary that the massive global drop in human fertility has been so little noticed by the media, escaping the attention of even highly educated Americans.

www.geocurrents.info...

BAAN TAM TA KEM, Thailand—Slumping fertility rates aren't just a problem for wealthy countries anymore.

Birthrates have fallen in Thailand in recent years, making it one of the poorest countries facing the prospect of shrinking labor pools and an aging population. Such problems, while familiar in Europe and Japan, used to be unheard of in the up-and-coming economies of Southeast Asia.

Other pockets of the developing world also have seen sharp declines in fertility rates,

including Brazil, Mexico and parts of India and Southeast Asia.

Rising prosperity appears to be one catalyst. If the trend continues, the United Nations projects—in its "low-growth" forecast—that the global population will hit 8.3 billion in 2050 before declining to less than the current level of 7.2 billion by 2100. (Its "mid-growth" forecast projects 10.85 billion by century's end.)

"People aren't going to start having more children," he says. "That horse has already left the stable. What we are doing here is teaching elderly people in rural communities to learn more, earn more and increase their own productivity."

www.wsj.com...

In today’s world, high fertility rates are increasingly confined to tropical Africa. Birth rates in most so-called Third World countries have dropped precipitously, and some are now well below the replacement rate. Chile (1.85), Brazil (1.81), and Thailand (1.56) now have lower birth rates than France (2.0), Norway (1.95), and Sweden (1.98). To be sure, moderately elevated fertility is still a problem in several densely populated countries of Asia and Latin America, such as the Philippines (3.1) and Guatemala (3.92). But as the Google Public Data chart posted here shows, even the Philippines has been experiencing a steady fall in TFR. The same is true of Afghanistan, the most fecund country outside of Africa, at least for the past 15 years. As can also be seen, TFR declines have been much more modest in such African countries as Niger and Tanzania. It must be acknowledged, however, that reductions in fertility are not necessarily permanent. Source: www.geocurrents.info...

I find it extraordinary that the massive global drop in human fertility has been so little noticed by the media, escaping the attention of even highly educated Americans. The outdated idea that Mexico has a crushingly high birthrate continues to inform many discussions of immigration reform in the United States, even though Mexico’s TFR (2.32 in 2010) is only slightly above that of the United States. It almost seems as though we have collectively decided to ignore this momentous transformation of human behavior. Scholars and journalists alike continue to warn that global population is spiraling out of control.

Source: www.geocurrents.info...

To be honest, it might make things hard for Italy in future generations (the number of elders who need support being much higher than the number of young people who are able to do so), but the whole planet, and humankind as a whole, won't change that much, IMO. I mean, if Italian women are having, in average, about a kid each, that kinda compensates places where the women have much more children than that...

According to this, I'd say that there are enough people in the planet doing more than their fair share to keep the world population pretty high...

a reply to: grandmakdw

World population in general is on the decline. Overpopulation is a myth anyway. The problem is that humans tend to group themselves in very small areas without the necessary resources on hand.

I'm also not surprised that young people in Italy aren't willing to build huge families, just look at Greece next door and all the issues it's had in the last decade? That would terrify any young person, who can hardly keep themselves above water financially, into not having kids.

~Tenth

a reply to: grandmakdw

It's all part of the bigger picture, and has much to do with the society we live in.

For one it's no longer encouraged to start a family, and chances are my generation (80's-90's) won't have a pension so we'll be forced to make work an utmost priority to survive as a good slave. That being said, how is someone going to pay for a child when they can barely afford to live ?

Also psychologically we've been conditioned for years to no longer believe the "go forth and multiply" idea of the past.

We're approaching 7.5 BILLION in numbers. We are not going extinct any time soon, not until we've eradicated our environment and driven every other species into extinction. Surely that day will come, but it's a long ways off.

average lifespan

Note: The countries with the highest birth rate also have the highest infant mortality rate and the shortest lifespans.

a reply to: grandmakdw
So the question people should be asking is-is this a natural phenomena,or is it something we are doing wrong(or on purpose depending on your viewpoint)-are we damaging fertility by our chemically "enhanced" diets?

Or is it more insideous-do certain people wish to lower fertility rates by adulterating the food and water supply?

Its not only affecting humans either-animals are also showing loss of fertility..

a reply to: LukeDAP

Please take a look at the maps I just posted.

The countries with high birth rates have extraordinarily high infant mortality rates (dying before 1st birthday - still considered a birth)
And the shortest lifespans (die young)

Which balances off the birth rates.

a reply to: grandmakdw

"I find it extraordinary that the massive global drop in human fertility has been so little noticed by the media, escaping the attention of even highly educated Americans."

Canadian media has covered this in the past, and sometimes actively seeks immigrants to certain parts of the country. Saskatchewan only has about a million people, lots of immigrants end up there.

Is it considered low "fertility rates" when the reason is good birth control? It's too expensive to have lots of children.
We're far from extinction though.

originally posted by: Silcone Synapse
a reply to: grandmakdw
So the question people should be asking is-is this a natural phenomena,or is it something we are doing wrong(or on purpose depending on your viewpoint)-are we damaging fertility by our chemically "enhanced" diets?

Or is it more insideous-do certain people wish to lower fertility rates by adulterating the food and water supply?

Its not only affecting humans either-animals are also showing loss of fertility..

It started as on purpose, because of the fear of a great population explosion that the earth could not handle. Then as people were educated and children had a higher survival rate they choose to have fewer children.

Now with the high cost of having a child in developed countries, the financial constraints are holding the voluntary birth rate low. With birth control and abortion in many cases free and easily available (no judgement here, just a cold fact) women can easily control the number of children down to what they feel they can afford.

It is true that animals are going extinct, perhaps it is a natural phenomenon, sort of like the fall of the dinosaurs. The rise and fall of a species.

originally posted by: threeeyesopen
a reply to: grandmakdw

It's all part of the bigger picture, and has much to do with the society we live in.

For one it's no longer encouraged to start a family, and chances are my generation (80's-90's) won't have a pension so we'll be forced to make work an utmost priority to survive as a good slave. That being said, how is someone going to pay for a child when they can barely afford to live ?

Also psychologically we've been conditioned for years to no longer believe the "go forth and multiply" idea of the past.

You are correct. In the past large families were needed as they were economic assets. Now however, children are a huge economic drain on the family. Unless one has double the average income in the US, having a child or two leaves a family living paycheck to paycheck and mostly on credit. If one has the average income in the US a child becomes a luxury.

Actually, thinking of it now. Children have become a luxury. Many, if not most families can not afford to have replacement rate children. Now that children have moved from an asset to a drain on families, I truly understand the families who only have one child or choose to have none.

It is also true that the current generation has been so brainwashed against having children that they brainwashing has stuck and even entrenched in the psyche.

Whenever I bring up the population decline there are far more deniers than those that acknowledge the decline of the human being.

Humans may not become extinct, but the human population will decline dramatically.

The more children are actual drains on families (both financial and emotional) the fewer children people will have.

Without the multi-generational family living together or in close proximity, children have become emotional drains on mothers, especially in the first few years, discouraging having further children.

Also, the state is trying harder and harder to get total control of children. If a child no longer "belongs" to the parent but to the state, why have them? If parents routinely fear the removal of their children by the state, why have them?

The state insistence on micromanagement of children's daily lives,
down to what they eat for lunch,
the less parents will want to put up with
the hassle/and/or/fear of state punishment
of having a child.

a reply to: snowspirit

We are far from extinction in human terms.

However in global terms and the life span of the earth as a whole
we are close to extinction
the best estimates are 700+ years.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I find it extraordinary that the massive global drop in human fertility has been so little noticed by the media, escaping the attention of even highly educated Americans.

I don't think it has anything to do with this. It's not like people are trying to have more kids but can't. People just don't want or need to anymore.

Oh great .................we are going extinct because why....we cant afford to reproduce.......pretty lame excuse...

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
We're approaching 7.5 BILLION in numbers. We are not going extinct any time soon, not until we've eradicated our environment and driven every other species into extinction. Surely that day will come, but it's a long ways off.

Yes, when you look at current trends in population, we are expected to peak out within 50 years. So for the next 50 years human population will continue to increase.

Then human population will start a precipitous decline. All we have to do is stay on the current trajectories and trends.
Then best estimates for extinction are 700+ years from now.

So extinction is a long way off in human time, but not in global earth time.

It is just time we quit with the overpopulation myth.

This is the exact reason that the government is so insistent

on allowing as many immigrants as possible

and stealing children from south america

because the economic impact of depopulation

can decimate a country

without uncontrolled immigration the US social security will fail in record time

with uncontrolled immigration the US can stave off the inevitable collapse of social security

due to population decline

originally posted by: stirling
Oh great .................we are going extinct because why....we cant afford to reproduce.......pretty lame excuse...

Lame excuse, but it is the reality of what has happened and is happening.

Look at it from the primary reproducer: females
just as a female completes her education
her career trajectory is hampered by having a child
the best day care centers have set hours with penalties for being late
small children are always getting ill, keeping mainly the mother at home and out of the office

she gets little to no sleep for 5 months to a year at a minimum,
many children get up at night for 18 months
as a working mother, there are no naps to make up for the exhaustion

grandparents often do not live close enough to give emotional or physical support
to young parents
who must wrestle with the huge time commitment

the cost of having a child is very very high immediately
check out the cost of diapers and baby food
day care, my daughters day care center which is high quality is well over $1000 per month per child
all of this hits couples as they are still paying off high student loans and getting starter wages

there is great fear among my daughters friends of the state
I was at a pool party with them, one of the children tripped over nothing and face planted on the cement
then another child did a face plant on the cement while going down a step
the two children were from the same family
the mother said "Well, we have all of you to prove that we had nothing to do with the bruises on their faces."
They express fear of taking children to the ER or doc when the children do what children do, as young children are unsteady as they learn to walk, climb, run, etc.
Now Michelle Obama tells parents they aren't feeding their children correctly, and some countries punishing parents whose children are plump.

Add up all of this in the early years, and why on earth would a woman want to double or triple or more the hassle, the economic impact, the emotional and physical toll, and fear of persecution by the state?

originally posted by: IPFreely101
a reply to: grandmakdw

I find it extraordinary that the massive global drop in human fertility has been so little noticed by the media, escaping the attention of even highly educated Americans.

I don't think it has anything to do with this. It's not like people are trying to have more kids but can't. People just don't want or need to anymore.

You are correct, as I said in the above post,
women in particular don't want to have children anymore.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Immigration in the US is at net 0 actually.

Nobody wants to move to the US anymore. It's not actually an issue.

Again, overpopulation is a myth. It's the systems we put in place that would fail, not the lack of resources. It's people's greed and covetous nature.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: grandmakdw

Immigration in the US is at net 0 actually.

Nobody wants to move to the US anymore. It's not actually an issue.

Again, overpopulation is a myth. It's the systems we put in place that would fail, not the lack of resources. It's people's greed and covetous nature.

~Tenth

You are right, if it were not for uncontrolled immigration, the US would have a declining population like Japan, Italy and many other countries.

The government knows that uncontrolled immigration is the only way to keep the inevitable collapse of social security at bay. By allowing uncontrolled immigration and encouraging children to come without parents, it keeps the population young enough to support social security and to prevent economic collapse of the sort that will happen soon in Japan.