4 ms·

The great Isaac Asimov spoke of this back in his day, http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-fair.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/life

The great Isaac Asimov spoke of this back in his day, http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-fair.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-fair.h... "Well, the earth's population is now about 3,000,000,000 and is doubling every 40 years. If this rate of doubling goes unchecked, then a World-Manhattan is coming in just 500 years. All earth will be a single choked Manhattan by A.D. 2450 and society will collapse long before that! There are only two general ways of preventing this: (1) raise the death rate; (2) lower the birth rate. Undoubtedly, the world of A>D. 2014 will have agreed on the latter method. Indeed, the increasing use of mechanical devices to replace failing hearts and kidneys, and repair stiffening arteries and breaking nerves will have cut the death rate still further and have lifted the life expectancy in some parts of the world to age 85. There will, therefore, be a worldwide propaganda drive in favor of birth control by rational and humane methods and, by 2014, it will undoubtedly have taken serious effect. The rate of increase of population will have slackened*but, I suspect, not sufficiently."

bradleyland 13y ago
Asimov is fantastic, but he wasn't always right. The population growth rate is roughly half (1.1% vs 2%) what it was in the mid-sixties when that piece was written, and it continues to trend downward as more countries with lots of people advance their development. That's a bit more than "slackened", IMO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_ra... As it turns out, developed societies trend toward a lower growth rate. We're not 100% certain why, but no great propaganda machine is required.
- VLM 13y ago
  For a little while, modern civil engineering drops the childhood death rate much faster than cultural expectations can catch up. Gotta pop out ten kids if eight of them are going to die before age 5. Whoops turns out they're all going to live till they're 80.
  - DougWebb 13y ago
    Now the modern equivalent is "Oh man, how are we going to pay for college for all these kids we're planning on? We'd better have fewer of them or we're going to go broke long before we die or they're able to support us."
- tekalon 13y ago
  Possibilities for why: -Access to better medical care (lower mother/child mortality rate) which means children are more likely to survive unto adult hood. Also includes birth control (pill, condoms, hysterectomy/vasectomy, etc). If parents (or individually potential mothers or fathers) don't want kids, they have choices to prevent. - Women have better education and choices: can work, can be stay at home mom, work at home mom, working mom, mom/not a mom, married/not married (and so many other mixes and situations I won't go on). - Children in developed countries take more resources and time to raise. Education mostly, but also socially pushed 'toys' and activities. Also take into account the 'emerging youth' trend which includes the 20-30 somethings that stay with their parents during/after highschool/college trying to find work/purpose. This costs parents money and can delay their retirement or other goals. More kids there are, more $ and more delay of goals. - Parents are no longer relying on their kids during retirement. Retirement funds, pensions and savings no longer require relying (as much) on the adult children (of course that's the ideal, but not always what happens). -Children are no longer needed to mind the farm/family business. -Adults are getting married later in life. Less time to have lots of kids, and having kids later in life can result in fertility issues and health complications. I list these mostly since as an educated woman who recently married in her mid-late 20's, I've thought of these and relate with these and how they work in my life. While I like the idea of a large family, like my parents had, it doesn't make sense for my husband and I. We plan only 2-3, closer to 2 kids. We're waiting to finish schooling (my second bachelors and my masters and my husband's schooling after jumping around trying to figure out what he wanted to study). We're both working full time, so no money due to school, no time due to work and school. While my parents rely on their children due to the economy, I know its more of an exception now than a rule. We're in the US, but I've sometimes considered moving to European countries that encourage families due to a stagnant/low birth rate (but of course don't like immigrants).
signa11 13y ago
> The rate of increase of population will have slackenedbut, I suspect, not sufficiently." imho, far more interesting thing to look at would be the second-derivative of the rate-of-increase. if that shows a decreasing trend we are ok, no ?

bradleyland 13y ago

Asimov is fantastic, but he wasn't always right. The population growth rate is roughly half (1.1% vs 2%) what it was in the mid-sixties when that piece was written, and it continues to trend downward as more countries with lots of people advance their development. That's a bit more than "slackened", IMO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_ra... As it turns out, developed societies trend toward a lower growth rate. We're not 100% certain why, but no great propaganda machine is required.

VLM 13y ago
For a little while, modern civil engineering drops the childhood death rate much faster than cultural expectations can catch up. Gotta pop out ten kids if eight of them are going to die before age 5. Whoops turns out they're all going to live till they're 80.
- DougWebb 13y ago
  Now the modern equivalent is "Oh man, how are we going to pay for college for all these kids we're planning on? We'd better have fewer of them or we're going to go broke long before we die or they're able to support us."
tekalon 13y ago
Possibilities for why: -Access to better medical care (lower mother/child mortality rate) which means children are more likely to survive unto adult hood. Also includes birth control (pill, condoms, hysterectomy/vasectomy, etc). If parents (or individually potential mothers or fathers) don't want kids, they have choices to prevent. - Women have better education and choices: can work, can be stay at home mom, work at home mom, working mom, mom/not a mom, married/not married (and so many other mixes and situations I won't go on). - Children in developed countries take more resources and time to raise. Education mostly, but also socially pushed 'toys' and activities. Also take into account the 'emerging youth' trend which includes the 20-30 somethings that stay with their parents during/after highschool/college trying to find work/purpose. This costs parents money and can delay their retirement or other goals. More kids there are, more $ and more delay of goals. - Parents are no longer relying on their kids during retirement. Retirement funds, pensions and savings no longer require relying (as much) on the adult children (of course that's the ideal, but not always what happens). -Children are no longer needed to mind the farm/family business. -Adults are getting married later in life. Less time to have lots of kids, and having kids later in life can result in fertility issues and health complications. I list these mostly since as an educated woman who recently married in her mid-late 20's, I've thought of these and relate with these and how they work in my life. While I like the idea of a large family, like my parents had, it doesn't make sense for my husband and I. We plan only 2-3, closer to 2 kids. We're waiting to finish schooling (my second bachelors and my masters and my husband's schooling after jumping around trying to figure out what he wanted to study). We're both working full time, so no money due to school, no time due to work and school. While my parents rely on their children due to the economy, I know its more of an exception now than a rule. We're in the US, but I've sometimes considered moving to European countries that encourage families due to a stagnant/low birth rate (but of course don't like immigrants).

signa11 13y ago

> The rate of increase of population will have slackenedbut, I suspect, not sufficiently." imho, far more interesting thing to look at would be the second-derivative of the rate-of-increase. if that shows a decreasing trend we are ok, no ?