11 ms·

US Birth-to-Death Ratio Nearing One

25 points by cinquemb 5y ago

neverminder 5y ago
Ah yes, the greatest irony of Liberalism is that it's designed to eventually self destruct. Extinction by low birth rates.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  I would imagine humanity has hit the asymptote of the natural growth curve. War and famine were the only forces that kept population in check. And those are dramatically reduced in modern era.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    Where do you get this war and famine being a control from? The information wasn’t even hard to find, war claimed 100m+ and famine 128mil. 228mil dead from these actions over 100 years vs 7.8billion. Is this an excruciatingly slow sink? https://ways-to-die.com/people-died-war/ https://ways-to-die.com/people-died-war/ https://ourworldindata.org/famines https://ourworldindata.org/famines
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      Prior to 1960, famine and war did limit population for thousands of years. Famine was an ever-present issue since virtually everybody on earth was a farmer, and one bad crop could be fatal to their family. That's still true today in much of Asia. The data period you're referencing is skewed by the US policing the globe since 1945, preventing major wars. Ironically, the country thought of as a new superpower, China, today imports about half of its food. So they face remarkable food insecurity in 2021, and rely on their top adversary for much of it.
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      What made you think to begin your plot for percentage of human lives claimed by war and famine at 100 years ago? 100 years ago IS modern times. We had electricity, automobiles, tractors, trains, modern agriculture, artificial fertilizer, etc by then. But also, you are off by a great deal for the 20th century. World War II claimed 80 million+ lives. World War I 40 million+, alone. Not even factoring for civil wars, Vietnam, African wars, and violent purges in USSR and China. The population wasn't 7.8 billion 100 years ago. You have to plot your data as a function of time. You can't fast-forward to present time population and compare with past death counts to arrive at a percentage. Here's an incomplete list of famines in human history, many of which caused civilizations to collapse: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
      - tekknik 5y ago
        > 100 years ago IS modern times. This is quite a bit subjective. If the statement was from prior to 100 years ago then that's my mistake. Perhaps we should say specific periods instead of subjective terms. > The population wasn't 7.8 billion 100 years ago. You have to plot your data as a function of time. If the claim that population is controlled via wars and famine, then the current population of 7.8 billion was not effected by this. The evidence is in that large number. Not that 228 mil is a low percentage of 7.8 billion, but that if this is in fact a sink then it's inefficient. > But also, you are off by a great deal for the 20th century. World War II claimed 80 million+ lives. World War I 40 million+, alone. Not even factoring for civil wars, Vietnam, African wars, and violent purges in USSR and China. Thanks for the updated data. And I agree that if we rewind more through history this may have been true. If modern times means >=1500 then ok. Modern times to me means some percentage of my life given the rate of change of the world I've experience as well as other factors.
crubier 5y ago
Good. Hopefully humanity as a whole would soon reach this phase of zero population growth (through lowered birth rate, not increase death rate). This is absolutely the only way to be long term sustainable on a single planet.
- nsizx 5y ago
  US ratio approaching 1 doesn't mean world population will lower but that Mohammed will replace you.
- NonContro 5y ago
  That's not accurate, birth rates show no signs of slowing down in parts of Africa and West Asia: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/historical-and-projected-population-by-region_v13_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/historical-and-projected-... "There were strong negative correlations found between national IQ and three national indicators of fertility." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289607000244 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... Many of these same high-fertility/low-IQ countries are trashing the environment, as indicated by plastic pollution: https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics The future you are celebrating is basically Idiocracy. Low fertility rates in the West and East Asia are a very bad thing for the future of our species and the planet.
  - neverminder 5y ago
    This is what I was trying to say too. These low-IQ countries you speak of - they don't care about pollution and even if they did - at their current development stage they couldn't afford to. Africa is projected to quadruple it's population while rapidly industrializing. It doesn't take a genius to realize what impact on global warming that's gonna have.
    - crubier 5y ago
      Not if developed countries (who caused an overwhelming majority of global pollution, especially CO2) show the example by becoming sustainable economies. Then the carbon-burning Base of development will be understood as a temporary stage of development like the demographic transition.
nine_zeros 5y ago
The point of such declining population articles is not one of taking sides on increasing vs decreasing population. The point of such articles to examine what kind of society we are building. Are people feeling comfortable to produce the next generation? What challenges exist in production and raising of children? And finally, how many producers (young) to consumers (old) exist in society. These are interesting questions, one that a lot of millennials associate with. E.g. Society appears to be designed such that marriages are obsolete for millennials, producing a child is a burden and the future appears bleaker for individual humans. That said, a declining population is good for the planet, so long as we are not stuck in a death spiral. Immigration is America's life saver. Other countries are not so lucky.
fulafel 5y ago
Other countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/birth-rate-vs-death-rate https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/birth-rate-vs-death-rate
racecar789 5y ago
Affordable healthcare and housing would help increase the ratio.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- missedthecue 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the US has the most affordable housing of any developed country.
unpolloloco 5y ago
Easy solution for this "problem" - allow and encourage more immigration!
- websites2023 5y ago
  Absolutely. One of the best things about the US is that we have a culture which is adept at integrating immigrants. The US will stave off demographic collapse because of this.
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  The solution is to look at our culture and systems of governance and employment and understand what can be done to enable and encourage more people having children. Bringing in more people is just a lazy fix and does nothing to fix the underlying problems.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Why is population growth via reproduction a thing that governments should encourage? If there are problems with society, we should fix them for their own sake.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Counterpoint: The world has enough people (7.5B on track for 11B by end of century). Stop subsidizing children with pro natal policies, and pay people who choose not to have children (the three most impactful actions you can take to mitigate climate change is drive an EV or no car, eat less meat or no meat, and have less kids or no kids). Population growth cannot continue forever, nor population stability at an unsustainable aggregate consumption level. https://e360.yale.edu/features/our_overcrowded_planet_a_failure_of_family_planning https://e360.yale.edu/features/our_overcrowded_planet_a_fail...
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    Frankly, there is a larger understanding among young people that it’s irresponsible to have a child unless you’re financially stable with a good space for a home. Turns out that _most_ young people (outside of the software biz, of course!) don’t make enough money to support themselves plus a kid, plus a home with space good for raising kids. And they don’t feel outward pressure from their parents or religion to have a kid nearly as much as they used to. And beyond that, poor mental health and knowledge of what kids can be like also means young people just don’t feel ready to raise a kid for quite a while. These factors won’t go away without serious changes in how our economic system works. I would also ask if it really matters that the birth to death ratio is more than one. One seems like a good baseline to maintain.

25 points by cinquemb 5y ago

Ah yes, the greatest irony of Liberalism is that it's designed to eventually self destruct. Extinction by low birth rates.

chrisco255 5y ago
I would imagine humanity has hit the asymptote of the natural growth curve. War and famine were the only forces that kept population in check. And those are dramatically reduced in modern era.
- tekknik 5y ago
  Where do you get this war and famine being a control from? The information wasn’t even hard to find, war claimed 100m+ and famine 128mil. 228mil dead from these actions over 100 years vs 7.8billion. Is this an excruciatingly slow sink? https://ways-to-die.com/people-died-war/ https://ways-to-die.com/people-died-war/ https://ourworldindata.org/famines https://ourworldindata.org/famines
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    Prior to 1960, famine and war did limit population for thousands of years. Famine was an ever-present issue since virtually everybody on earth was a farmer, and one bad crop could be fatal to their family. That's still true today in much of Asia. The data period you're referencing is skewed by the US policing the globe since 1945, preventing major wars. Ironically, the country thought of as a new superpower, China, today imports about half of its food. So they face remarkable food insecurity in 2021, and rely on their top adversary for much of it.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    What made you think to begin your plot for percentage of human lives claimed by war and famine at 100 years ago? 100 years ago IS modern times. We had electricity, automobiles, tractors, trains, modern agriculture, artificial fertilizer, etc by then. But also, you are off by a great deal for the 20th century. World War II claimed 80 million+ lives. World War I 40 million+, alone. Not even factoring for civil wars, Vietnam, African wars, and violent purges in USSR and China. The population wasn't 7.8 billion 100 years ago. You have to plot your data as a function of time. You can't fast-forward to present time population and compare with past death counts to arrive at a percentage. Here's an incomplete list of famines in human history, many of which caused civilizations to collapse: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
    - tekknik 5y ago
      > 100 years ago IS modern times. This is quite a bit subjective. If the statement was from prior to 100 years ago then that's my mistake. Perhaps we should say specific periods instead of subjective terms. > The population wasn't 7.8 billion 100 years ago. You have to plot your data as a function of time. If the claim that population is controlled via wars and famine, then the current population of 7.8 billion was not effected by this. The evidence is in that large number. Not that 228 mil is a low percentage of 7.8 billion, but that if this is in fact a sink then it's inefficient. > But also, you are off by a great deal for the 20th century. World War II claimed 80 million+ lives. World War I 40 million+, alone. Not even factoring for civil wars, Vietnam, African wars, and violent purges in USSR and China. Thanks for the updated data. And I agree that if we rewind more through history this may have been true. If modern times means >=1500 then ok. Modern times to me means some percentage of my life given the rate of change of the world I've experience as well as other factors.

crubier 5y ago

Good. Hopefully humanity as a whole would soon reach this phase of zero population growth (through lowered birth rate, not increase death rate). This is absolutely the only way to be long term sustainable on a single planet.

nsizx 5y ago
US ratio approaching 1 doesn't mean world population will lower but that Mohammed will replace you.
NonContro 5y ago
That's not accurate, birth rates show no signs of slowing down in parts of Africa and West Asia: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/historical-and-projected-population-by-region_v13_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/historical-and-projected-... "There were strong negative correlations found between national IQ and three national indicators of fertility." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289607000244 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602... Many of these same high-fertility/low-IQ countries are trashing the environment, as indicated by plastic pollution: https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics The future you are celebrating is basically Idiocracy. Low fertility rates in the West and East Asia are a very bad thing for the future of our species and the planet.
- neverminder 5y ago
  This is what I was trying to say too. These low-IQ countries you speak of - they don't care about pollution and even if they did - at their current development stage they couldn't afford to. Africa is projected to quadruple it's population while rapidly industrializing. It doesn't take a genius to realize what impact on global warming that's gonna have.
  - crubier 5y ago
    Not if developed countries (who caused an overwhelming majority of global pollution, especially CO2) show the example by becoming sustainable economies. Then the carbon-burning Base of development will be understood as a temporary stage of development like the demographic transition.

nine_zeros 5y ago

The point of such declining population articles is not one of taking sides on increasing vs decreasing population. The point of such articles to examine what kind of society we are building. Are people feeling comfortable to produce the next generation? What challenges exist in production and raising of children? And finally, how many producers (young) to consumers (old) exist in society. These are interesting questions, one that a lot of millennials associate with. E.g. Society appears to be designed such that marriages are obsolete for millennials, producing a child is a burden and the future appears bleaker for individual humans. That said, a declining population is good for the planet, so long as we are not stuck in a death spiral. Immigration is America's life saver. Other countries are not so lucky.

fulafel 5y ago

Other countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/birth-rate-vs-death-rate https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/birth-rate-vs-death-rate

racecar789 5y ago

Affordable healthcare and housing would help increase the ratio.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
missedthecue 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the US has the most affordable housing of any developed country.

unpolloloco 5y ago

Easy solution for this "problem" - allow and encourage more immigration!

websites2023 5y ago
Absolutely. One of the best things about the US is that we have a culture which is adept at integrating immigrants. The US will stave off demographic collapse because of this.
DamnYuppie 5y ago
The solution is to look at our culture and systems of governance and employment and understand what can be done to enable and encourage more people having children. Bringing in more people is just a lazy fix and does nothing to fix the underlying problems.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Why is population growth via reproduction a thing that governments should encourage? If there are problems with society, we should fix them for their own sake.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Counterpoint: The world has enough people (7.5B on track for 11B by end of century). Stop subsidizing children with pro natal policies, and pay people who choose not to have children (the three most impactful actions you can take to mitigate climate change is drive an EV or no car, eat less meat or no meat, and have less kids or no kids). Population growth cannot continue forever, nor population stability at an unsustainable aggregate consumption level. https://e360.yale.edu/features/our_overcrowded_planet_a_failure_of_family_planning https://e360.yale.edu/features/our_overcrowded_planet_a_fail...
- noahtallen 5y ago
  Frankly, there is a larger understanding among young people that it’s irresponsible to have a child unless you’re financially stable with a good space for a home. Turns out that _most_ young people (outside of the software biz, of course!) don’t make enough money to support themselves plus a kid, plus a home with space good for raising kids. And they don’t feel outward pressure from their parents or religion to have a kid nearly as much as they used to. And beyond that, poor mental health and knowledge of what kids can be like also means young people just don’t feel ready to raise a kid for quite a while. These factors won’t go away without serious changes in how our economic system works. I would also ask if it really matters that the birth to death ratio is more than one. One seems like a good baseline to maintain.