Japan -- Geriatric Society

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
France is doing reasonably well.

Below replacement level is not what I'd call reasonably well.

[snoopy369]

Why is below replacement level birth numbers a bad thing, in the present overpopulated world we live in

[VetLegion]

Something is fundamentally wrong with a society if people don't want to have children.

[snoopy369]

... such as there are too many people in the society?

Below replacement level doesn't mean they aren't having children...

Most countries in the world - if not all - would benefit greatly from a few centuries of below replacement level birth rates.

[Dauphin]

Meanwhile, UK abortion rates hit 200,000 a year.

[snoopy369]

Is that mostly teenagers, or adults?

[C0ckney]

mostly unborn babies.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by snoopy369
... such as there are too many people in the society?

Below replacement level doesn't mean they aren't having children...

Most countries in the world - if not all - would benefit greatly from a few centuries of below replacement level birth rates.

That is only if you have a very naive view of overpopulation. With current technology no country on Earth is overpopulated.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by C0ckney
mostly unborn babies.

Seems like the obvious answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

Most countries in the world - if not all - would benefit greatly from a few centuries of below replacement level birth rates.

You buy into that?

Sounds to me that you are volunteering to be killed so that there are less people on the planet.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Is that mostly teenagers, or adults?

Over 150,000 are over 20. Around 60,000 have already had one or more abortions previously.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9520

[snoopy369]

It rather depends on how you define 'overpopulation'. You could define it certainly as 'population > food available', but that would be a rather absurd definition, considering we don't live in a communist society and all...

I think most countries would benefit from zero or negative population growth in the short term, at least. Spending additional resources to feed people who cannot be productive (due to the decreasing need for human capital, ie labor, as technology advances) is inefficient.

Certainly I don't favor directly reducing population However, if people are voluntarily reducing the population via not having more children, how can that be a bad thing?

The main problem is the countries who most need to do this, aren't (India, eg) ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Over 150,000 are over 20. Around 60,000 have already had one or more abortions previously.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS....asp?vlnk=9520

Perhaps someone should explain to British women that condoms and the pill are both much cheaper and less painful options

[Ben Kenobi]

Certainly I don't favor directly reducing population

Why not? Honestly, if it's bad to have more people in the world, the logical extension of that is to kill yourself.

One problem with your previous argument, is that food production isn't an independent variable.

[snoopy369]

My argument is that food production is not the key variable, but one of many. I also do not argue that it is bad to have more people in the world, but rather that it is not bad to have less...