Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not worried about my survival, I'm worried about my theoretical children's survival
But, by not having children, you ensure their demise.
I guarantee they will never suffer by not having them
India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
421–427 of 427 posts
Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
#422Global population will basically top out at 9-10bn. I look forward to the problems we will face then, and the apocalyptic narratives the media will invent about this new problem. Here's my shot at a few: - Even with better quality of life its going to be hard to make people who are over 70 work productively. But without children less and less people will need to take care of this large old age group. And they will ne…
> Already eastern europe are becoming rich enough that much much less people want to emmigrate. Oh dear I wish it was true, but it isn't. Eastern Europe is facing a dramatic brain drain and it isn't slowing down. For instance, Romania has lost 15% of its population in the past 30 years (3.5M people!), most of the loss coming after 2000 and the decline being pretty much constant between 2000 and today. Czech Republic…
Not true in case of India either. A report[1] released just a few weeks ago mentions 0.85 million Indians who have surrendered their Indian citizenship in favour of US, Australia or other western countries in last 7 years.
It would be conservative to estimate that the number of migrants who have not yet surrendered their citizenship is 10x.
The brain drain is massive. I live and work in a tech hub and my social circle depletes every year. Every smart friend/colleague/acquaintance I have has either moved, is moving or hopes to move to the west in the next 5 years.
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/over-8-5-lakh-indi...
Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malthus wasn't completely wrong, but international trade mitigates the problem. This, of course, requires large surpluses in the exporting countries and fully operational supply chains, which we tended to take for granted until now. An example: Egypt, a former granary of the Mediterranean, is now a net food importer and a sudden swing in world commodity prices could very well topple the ruling junta. This wouldn't ha…
Egypt's grain imports were caused by bad governance and theft, not by population. Mubarak instituted a bizarre form of reverse land reform in which he stole land from families who had farmed it for ten generations and gave it to cronies who attempted to grow fruit and flowers for Europe. The cronies were not farmers, their crops failed, the desert rolled in. Truly, the apex of capitalism. https://www.marketplace.org/…
When the government takes your land that’s generally called communism, not capitalism.
Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the percent of population living in those condos? 99% of Americans don’t live there.
Judging by the prices, they would like to, and they would if you made enough of them.
Isn't SF out of room? This is just supply demand curves that can't be met with more supply.
Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
That won't end until young people actually show up to polls just as significantly. Politicians cater to their voting constituents and the elderly show up to vote stronger. Some of this is due to our suspect "you have this 1 Tuesday to do it" voting day. But what young people can do is make it socially unacceptable to not vote like the elderly do to each other.
Young people don't vote as much partly due to lack of habit, but also due to their jobs having less flexible scheduling and voter registration rolls being tied to where you live. Old people live in places longer, young people move more. It's simply a much bigger paperwork hurdle to get registered, find your polling place, etc. And that's assuming you can take time off and politicians have actually bothered trying to…
I know that when I was young, lack of interest is what kept me from voting, along with most everyone that I knew in the age range. I can't imagine things have changed all that much.
I think everyone needs to understand what they're voting for, which requires much more effort than habit, so I'm not sure that's a good goal (unless that understanding is part of the habit, of course, which isn't what I've seen).
Looking back, not only did I lack interest, but I was easily swayed by politicians, promising things that would never happen, and news, providing incomplete perspectives and half truths. I was young, living with my parents, and completely lacked perspective on the machine of the world. If I were to go back, I would stop myself from voting that young, because it was completely hollow. From what I've seen, younger people these days don't seem to be much different. Easiest proof being that they're shocked that they're not getting the campaign promises that they voted for.
Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
Egypt's grain imports were caused by bad governance and theft, not by population. Mubarak instituted a bizarre form of reverse land reform in which he stole land from families who had farmed it for ten generations and gave it to cronies who attempted to grow fruit and flowers for Europe. The cronies were not farmers, their crops failed, the desert rolled in. Truly, the apex of capitalism. https://www.marketplace.org/…
When the government takes your land that’s generally called communism, not capitalism.
I take it you're not Native American...
All authoritarians confiscate property when it benefits them to do so. When communists have taken farm land, they have mostly left it as farm land, even if production has sometimes decreased due to incompetence. No one with a clue would consider Hosni Mubarak a communist, because he transformed land that had produced grain for millennia into "investment vehicles" for cronies, and then into desert. Not even communists are that incompetent, or venal.
Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Already eastern europe are becoming rich enough that much much less people want to emmigrate. Oh dear I wish it was true, but it isn't. Eastern Europe is facing a dramatic brain drain and it isn't slowing down. For instance, Romania has lost 15% of its population in the past 30 years (3.5M people!), most of the loss coming after 2000 and the decline being pretty much constant between 2000 and today. Czech Republic…
Not true in case of India either. A report[1] released just a few weeks ago mentions 0.85 million Indians who have surrendered their Indian citizenship in favour of US, Australia or other western countries in last 7 years. It would be conservative to estimate that the number of migrants who have not yet surrendered their citizenship is 10x. The brain drain is massive. I live and work in a tech hub and my social circl…
But 0.85 million is honestly a drop in the water for India. That's still less than 5% of the babies born in India in that time frame.