good. less nazis, lol.
Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
31–40 of 138 posts
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Lover birth rate is a good thing in the long term It most definitely is NOT a good thing to have a birth rate below replacement in a developed country, especially one with European-style social programs. Eventually you run out of workers to support the people who aren't doing so.
I don't know what are you quoting me, and then talking about something I never wrote. ( rhetorical q. )
Well, to be honest I thought you meant "lower" birth rate. I've never heard of the concept of "lover birth" rate before.
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more peop…
> You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? I have traveled all over the place, so your lousy ad hominem is unnecessary. "Crowded" is not the same as "overpopulated." > If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. Ah, so now we've moved from a factual question ("Is the world overpopulated?"…
> "Who are we going to forcibly sterilize to maintain that level?"
That's unnecessarily inflammatory. We could substantially reduce the birth rate by providing everyone with free birth control and promoting its usage. If that isn't sufficient we could pay money to anyone who has a vasectomy.
There are still ethical questions there, but it's a far cry from rounding up poor people and sterilizing them against their will.
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what are you quoting me, and then talking about something I never wrote. ( rhetorical q. )
Well, to be honest I thought you meant "lower" birth rate. I've never heard of the concept of "lover birth" rate before.
Lower is what I meant, it was a typo. And that is not what I'm referring to in my parent comment, which is still valid.
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he means there's a difference between births arising from couples in love, as opposed to births arising either by accident or from couples bound by other arrangments forced out of motives of survival, hence the qualifier being a " lover's birth rate." As for quantifying which births are " lover's " births, and which are not, well... good luck with that.
I'm thinking typo. "Lover" birth rate doesn't really make sense in the context of the discussion.
Ha ha! Right you are, oh well...
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#36It's difficult not to see to the word 'slumped' as an editorial judgement, and I find it quite strange. The world is grotesquely overpopulated and at some point it needs to stop.
There are people who argue that this is not the case.
https://overpopulationisamyth.com/
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't travelled to India, China or Bangladesh have you ? The world is already heavily overpopulated. If we estimate the amount of people the world can support and that's higher than the current number, it does not mean we should have that higher number. If we keep going higher, we will not be able to stop the destruction of flora and fauna that is currently underway. The world may be able to "support" more peop…
I live in China, which is not nearly as populated as Bangladesh or India. We have to decide if we are to move forward or back. Technology can help us boost population while limiting impact, we can also branch out into new ecological niches (even those off planet) as any successful animal would. Biologically speaking, we should increase in number if we are doing well, to do otherwise isn't very natural (and ya, flora…
It takes a special kind of person to look at all the environmental damage we are currently doing to the world (destruction of rainforests, overfishing, rising sea levels, disappearance of coral reefs, desertification, air pollution, soil erosion), and say "more please!"
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#38Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is not overpopulated by a long shot. There may be a lot of overconsumption in certain regions, but that's a different issue.
Currently it takes 1.2 earths' worth of resources to support the earth's population, which means the earth cannot support all of us without starting to deplete resources. So yes, the planet IS overpopulated.
And, of course, you can provide links to credible studies supporting such extraordinary claims, right?
Re: Germany passes Japan to have world's lowest birth rate
#40I'm not so sure I understand the point of view that labor shortages will be such a bad thing for the economy. If you are a worker, "high labor costs" is a very GOOD thing. For decades we've seen the value of labor fall behind the value of capital, and a more constrained labor supply might help change this.