14 ms·

As an aside, I think looking at the global fertility rate is not very informative. The only reason that global fertility rates remain above 2 is because of Afri

by rjf72 7y ago

As an aside, I think looking at the global fertility rate is not very informative. The only reason that global fertility rates remain above 2 is because of Africa and the Middle East. The people of developed nations are, for the most part, going to gradually go extinct. This is list as of nations by fertility rate. [1] And that list is also an aggregate. Things such as education, modest or secular religious views, and income all work as major factors against fertility when looking at the composition of what is already, even as an aggregate, below replacement fertility rates. This paints an interesting picture for the future. This [2] is a study from Pew showing the expected changes in religiosity in the future. Unaffiliated are expected to decrease from 16.4% to 13.2% by 2050, Buddhists down 7.1% to 5.2%., Muslims to increase from 23.2% to 29.7%, and so on. I don't understand why fertility rate is not a bigger consideration for people who consider themselves interested or invested in social progress. Fertility is arguably the biggest factor there is in what this world will look like in the coming years. If helping people to become economically comfortable, secular, and educated leads to them no longer reproducing - you're going to end up taking two steps back for every step forward. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... [2] - https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/ https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-20...

simonh 7y ago
It's also possible to be for social progress, but also think the world is over-populated. In fact if a person generally worries about the future of humanity, I would not be surprised to see a strong correlation between those two attitudes. A fertility rate of 1.7 isn't the same as 'not reproducing' and doesn't imply 'going extinct'. You can't just extrapolate a trend at any given moment indefinitely. Otherwise if you pick a moment of rising population you'll extrapolate up to infinity or if you pick a moment of falling population you'll extrapolate to zero. Reality doesn't work like that. Arguably it's just a trend towards right-sizing the population. Globally fertility rates have been falling for many decades. It's hardly surprising that the poorest countries are among the last to see fertility rates decline the most, but as income and education rates in those regions rise, their fertility rates will also fall. As a for secularization, which you seem to conflate with social progress, counting 'Muslims' and 'Christians' isn't a simple exercise. Counting everyone born to Muslim parents as Muslim doesn't make any more sense than counting everyone who gives presents at Christmas as Christian. In fact attendances at Mosques and actual participation in religious activities is in decline across most of the Muslim world. In Europe most 'Muslims' do not pray every day. Egypt is a good proxy for trends in the Muslim world due to it's cultural influence. There are steep declines in religious practice and support for imposing Sharia Law has more than halved over the last decade.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  World isn't overpopulated. I don't think there is a hard limit on number of people. >You can't just extrapolate a trend at any given moment indefinitely. I assume the model probably looks at chances that offspring of Muslim parents share parents religion. > fertility rate of 1.7 isn't the same as 'not reproducing' and doesn't imply 'going extinct'. When you have countries with median age 40+, you know their health care and other systems are also struggling. The lower your fertility the older your society, the older your society, the lower your fertility. Can't attract immigrants? You are fucked basically.
  - simonh 7y ago
    My main concern with overpopulation isn't how many people the world could support as a maximum, I'm sure it's very high, it's how many it can support without dramatically degrading the environment. An ageing population has negative consequences, sure, we'll just have to manage them. Allowing the population to increase indefinitely isn't a solution though, it's just kicking the can down the road until you do hit a hard limit, and then you're in _real_ trouble.
    - mymythisisthis 7y ago
      All the good land is now dedicated to farming. What's left is the stuff that is hard to grow on; too rocky, too cold, too north for any light, too dry. It turns out the oceans are the opposite of robust, for how large they are. The economy of N. America depends on building cheap housing, to attract more immigrants, so they can work building housing, to sell to new immigrants. I have nothing against immigrants. Just pointing out how the economy really works, despite what a small handful of people in a booming (but slowing) tech sector feel about what drives the economy - it's the housing market.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        That's a humongous assertion about the US economy and not at all in line with the data. Construction is only 4.0% of the GDP, and the lump of finance and real estate (renting, reselling mixed in with the entire stock market) is 20%. >The economy of N. America depends on building cheap housing, to attract more immigrants, so they can work building housing, to sell to new immigrants. As described, that would fall into the 4%. https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-industry https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-industry
coldtea 7y ago
>I don't understand why fertility rate is not a bigger consideration for people who consider themselves interested or invested in social progress. Fertility From their perspective, the right thing for their societies to do is to progressively go extinct serving each member's personal convenience. Fertility, outside of personal choice as a lifestyle accessory, is something for the deplorables and the developing nations. Some are so educated that they expect miracle drugs in the future will keep them young forever (solving the pesky non-replacement problem). (They also rationalize their societies extinction in that the world is "overpopulated").
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  You really shouldn't use weasel words and just point out the sizes of the groups you're taking about. The problem is global and very likely tied to overlong work and education during prime reproductive time. Especially when there is virtual segregation in some branches. It is, no matter whatever is said, tied to belief.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >You really shouldn't use weasel words and just point out the sizes of the groups you're taking about. You use this term, "weasel words". I don't think it means what you think it means. What exactly are the weasel words here? I was quite clear. Also how about some less hostility? Did I say anything personal about you? >The problem is global and very likely tied to overlong work and education during prime reproductive time. Especially when there is virtual segregation in some branches. It is, no matter whatever is said, tied to belief. Never said the reality of the issue was tied to belief. The issue however is tied to culture, lifestyle, beliefs, and how those influence people's decisions.
mirimir 7y ago
> The people of developed nations are, for the most part, going to gradually go extinct. I doubt that. Or at least, it depends how you define "people of developed nations". Racial (for lack of a better word) composition will change, and immigration will play a role there. The US, for example, is becoming more Native American (many Mexicans being ~indigentes). And Europe more semitic (in the general sense). Edit: Oops, I mean "indígena".
- python_gt_r3 7y ago
  Surely you mean indígena. Indigente means homeless, or when you want to call someone that has no idea what he talks about, for instance when they talk about racial trends in Europe and North America, "indigente intelectual".
- rjf72 7y ago
  What do you think makes a country, a country? I mean what makes, for instance, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia -- and what makes Norway, Norway? Let's carry out a simple thought experiment. Imagine you instantly swapped the peoples of the nations but kept everything otherwise identical. Are the people of Saudi Arabia (who now reside within the land and laws of Norway) now going to stop oppressing women? Are the people of Norway going to do the exact opposite and suddenly start oppressing their women, executing homosexuals, and all that stuff? I'm sure you'd agree they would not. The nations would rapidly regress/evolve, depending on your worldview, to what they originally were. So it should be clear that what makes up the "people of a nation" are the people themselves - and by that you have shared cultural, ideological, and other views. And with migration and cultural assimilation this culture can grow and expand, as has been the history of much of America. On the other hand cultures can also be completely replaced. For instance, imagine Islam continues to fail to really integrate into nations and, through raw fertility rates, starts to become the dominant factor in a generally liberal nation. What do you think would happen to LGBT rights? Women's rights? Freedom of religion and expression? Nations, in the sense of geographic locations, will probably not be going extinct anytime in the foreseeable future. But the views and values of nations, particularly those that trend towards embracing social views, are very much at risk of going extinct in the future. And the most ironic part this is that this is all completely foreseeable.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ptah 7y ago
you fail to include immigration, which is why you think extinction will take place
- fiblye 7y ago
  Current major source countries of immigrants (Mexico, Vietnam, China, Turkey, etc) are going through steep birth rate drops. The vast majority of countries with birth rates high enough to maintain their own population while allowing for waves of immigrants large enough to sustain other countries are in Africa. And they're dropping. Assuming the rates keep going as they are, in about 50 years, we'll be down to about 10 countries that will have enough people to migrate to other countries to support their economic ponzi schemes/social security, and the world will just be too big and full of old folks to get by with so few immigrants. Before we get to that point, we need to start working out economic systems that don't rely on constant growth to be sustainable.
ck425 7y ago
The question is do those stats accurately take into account the non-reproductive spread of social progress. Non-religiosity, education, female rights etc are all increasing outside of reproduction. Islamic countries may be growing population wise, but as female empowerment increases this may very well start to slow, as might rates of religiosity.
- yogata 7y ago
  There is no such thing as islamic countries.

by rjf72 7y ago

simonh 7y ago

It's also possible to be for social progress, but also think the world is over-populated. In fact if a person generally worries about the future of humanity, I would not be surprised to see a strong correlation between those two attitudes. A fertility rate of 1.7 isn't the same as 'not reproducing' and doesn't imply 'going extinct'. You can't just extrapolate a trend at any given moment indefinitely. Otherwise if you pick a moment of rising population you'll extrapolate up to infinity or if you pick a moment of falling population you'll extrapolate to zero. Reality doesn't work like that. Arguably it's just a trend towards right-sizing the population. Globally fertility rates have been falling for many decades. It's hardly surprising that the poorest countries are among the last to see fertility rates decline the most, but as income and education rates in those regions rise, their fertility rates will also fall. As a for secularization, which you seem to conflate with social progress, counting 'Muslims' and 'Christians' isn't a simple exercise. Counting everyone born to Muslim parents as Muslim doesn't make any more sense than counting everyone who gives presents at Christmas as Christian. In fact attendances at Mosques and actual participation in religious activities is in decline across most of the Muslim world. In Europe most 'Muslims' do not pray every day. Egypt is a good proxy for trends in the Muslim world due to it's cultural influence. There are steep declines in religious practice and support for imposing Sharia Law has more than halved over the last decade.

Ygg2 7y ago
World isn't overpopulated. I don't think there is a hard limit on number of people. >You can't just extrapolate a trend at any given moment indefinitely. I assume the model probably looks at chances that offspring of Muslim parents share parents religion. > fertility rate of 1.7 isn't the same as 'not reproducing' and doesn't imply 'going extinct'. When you have countries with median age 40+, you know their health care and other systems are also struggling. The lower your fertility the older your society, the older your society, the lower your fertility. Can't attract immigrants? You are fucked basically.
- simonh 7y ago
  My main concern with overpopulation isn't how many people the world could support as a maximum, I'm sure it's very high, it's how many it can support without dramatically degrading the environment. An ageing population has negative consequences, sure, we'll just have to manage them. Allowing the population to increase indefinitely isn't a solution though, it's just kicking the can down the road until you do hit a hard limit, and then you're in _real_ trouble.
  - mymythisisthis 7y ago
    All the good land is now dedicated to farming. What's left is the stuff that is hard to grow on; too rocky, too cold, too north for any light, too dry. It turns out the oceans are the opposite of robust, for how large they are. The economy of N. America depends on building cheap housing, to attract more immigrants, so they can work building housing, to sell to new immigrants. I have nothing against immigrants. Just pointing out how the economy really works, despite what a small handful of people in a booming (but slowing) tech sector feel about what drives the economy - it's the housing market.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      That's a humongous assertion about the US economy and not at all in line with the data. Construction is only 4.0% of the GDP, and the lump of finance and real estate (renting, reselling mixed in with the entire stock market) is 20%. >The economy of N. America depends on building cheap housing, to attract more immigrants, so they can work building housing, to sell to new immigrants. As described, that would fall into the 4%. https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-industry https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-industry

coldtea 7y ago

>I don't understand why fertility rate is not a bigger consideration for people who consider themselves interested or invested in social progress. Fertility From their perspective, the right thing for their societies to do is to progressively go extinct serving each member's personal convenience. Fertility, outside of personal choice as a lifestyle accessory, is something for the deplorables and the developing nations. Some are so educated that they expect miracle drugs in the future will keep them young forever (solving the pesky non-replacement problem). (They also rationalize their societies extinction in that the world is "overpopulated").

AstralStorm 7y ago
You really shouldn't use weasel words and just point out the sizes of the groups you're taking about. The problem is global and very likely tied to overlong work and education during prime reproductive time. Especially when there is virtual segregation in some branches. It is, no matter whatever is said, tied to belief.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >You really shouldn't use weasel words and just point out the sizes of the groups you're taking about. You use this term, "weasel words". I don't think it means what you think it means. What exactly are the weasel words here? I was quite clear. Also how about some less hostility? Did I say anything personal about you? >The problem is global and very likely tied to overlong work and education during prime reproductive time. Especially when there is virtual segregation in some branches. It is, no matter whatever is said, tied to belief. Never said the reality of the issue was tied to belief. The issue however is tied to culture, lifestyle, beliefs, and how those influence people's decisions.

mirimir 7y ago

> The people of developed nations are, for the most part, going to gradually go extinct. I doubt that. Or at least, it depends how you define "people of developed nations". Racial (for lack of a better word) composition will change, and immigration will play a role there. The US, for example, is becoming more Native American (many Mexicans being ~indigentes). And Europe more semitic (in the general sense). Edit: Oops, I mean "indígena".

python_gt_r3 7y ago
Surely you mean indígena. Indigente means homeless, or when you want to call someone that has no idea what he talks about, for instance when they talk about racial trends in Europe and North America, "indigente intelectual".
rjf72 7y ago
What do you think makes a country, a country? I mean what makes, for instance, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia -- and what makes Norway, Norway? Let's carry out a simple thought experiment. Imagine you instantly swapped the peoples of the nations but kept everything otherwise identical. Are the people of Saudi Arabia (who now reside within the land and laws of Norway) now going to stop oppressing women? Are the people of Norway going to do the exact opposite and suddenly start oppressing their women, executing homosexuals, and all that stuff? I'm sure you'd agree they would not. The nations would rapidly regress/evolve, depending on your worldview, to what they originally were. So it should be clear that what makes up the "people of a nation" are the people themselves - and by that you have shared cultural, ideological, and other views. And with migration and cultural assimilation this culture can grow and expand, as has been the history of much of America. On the other hand cultures can also be completely replaced. For instance, imagine Islam continues to fail to really integrate into nations and, through raw fertility rates, starts to become the dominant factor in a generally liberal nation. What do you think would happen to LGBT rights? Women's rights? Freedom of religion and expression? Nations, in the sense of geographic locations, will probably not be going extinct anytime in the foreseeable future. But the views and values of nations, particularly those that trend towards embracing social views, are very much at risk of going extinct in the future. And the most ironic part this is that this is all completely foreseeable.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ptah 7y ago

you fail to include immigration, which is why you think extinction will take place

fiblye 7y ago
Current major source countries of immigrants (Mexico, Vietnam, China, Turkey, etc) are going through steep birth rate drops. The vast majority of countries with birth rates high enough to maintain their own population while allowing for waves of immigrants large enough to sustain other countries are in Africa. And they're dropping. Assuming the rates keep going as they are, in about 50 years, we'll be down to about 10 countries that will have enough people to migrate to other countries to support their economic ponzi schemes/social security, and the world will just be too big and full of old folks to get by with so few immigrants. Before we get to that point, we need to start working out economic systems that don't rely on constant growth to be sustainable.

ck425 7y ago

The question is do those stats accurately take into account the non-reproductive spread of social progress. Non-religiosity, education, female rights etc are all increasing outside of reproduction. Islamic countries may be growing population wise, but as female empowerment increases this may very well start to slow, as might rates of religiosity.

yogata 7y ago
There is no such thing as islamic countries.