Comments on: World Total Fertility Rate Declines

By: Hope

Hope — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:11:36 +0000

Your article is intriguing and does reflect an identifiable downward trend in fertility rates. As many as 1 in 6 couple in the U. S. now require medical assistance in order to become pregnant. Because fertility treatments are often expensive, the costs can be prohibitive to many. I would encourage anyone who is seeking to be able afford treatment, to visit my site to save on infertility treatments.

By: rickety

rickety — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:12:11 +0000

Excellent points. With demographic momentum you do not see population decreases right away, even with low fertility rates. But it does catch up to a nation in the end. And as you pointed out with your example, demographic momentum then works against you as well as the worker/retired ratio being skewed.

By: ela

ela — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:45:58 +0000

http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/
if you read this you’ll understand
Regarding shortages, 20 years ago there was 3 times as much land used for producing food, now it is just left there, and since it is not cultivated it is producing way less oxygen too.

Simple math great-grand fathers had 6 kids (+1 who died young), from 6 marriages only in 4 born kids – totally 8 grandchildren, from these 8 only 7 married there were born 10 great-grand children now do the math backwards, for these 10 kids who share 1 pair of great-grand parents how many other great-grand parents contributed to their existence ? A: another 18 pair. For a simple replacement that means that these kids need to have another at least 28 cousins in order to have a 1-1 replacement after four generations, but there are less than 10 so there is a ~50% decrease after 4 generations, altough you would think starting with 6 kids it means a high increase in population.

The jamed world some people see has nothing to doo with overpopulation, it has to doo with life extension, and with crowded towns and cities, where people are atracted magnetically leaving other areas unpopulated. And on the roads it has a great deal to do with “driving with Hitler”, people who lived the WWII know what I mean.

By: rickety

rickety — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:03:48 +0000

Your comment raises some valid questions as well as perpetuating some misconceptions. Perhaps I should respond with a new post as there is quite a lot of ground to cover. However, I will respond to your statement, "...there is no scriptural basis for promoting large families." Try Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1. These commandments have never been repealed. They are still in force. Also consider Doctrine and Covenants 104:17 but note in verse 18 that the abundance has to be shared with the poor and the needy, in compliance with correct welfare principles. You also might want to look up the United Kingdom birthrates, as I did. Things are not always as they seem. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

By: Roger H Brown

Roger H Brown — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:41:54 +0000

Your concern about falling birthrates is overdone because you look mainly at the economic value of rising population. What about Earth’s environment? Do Christians care about rainforest loss, the coral reefs, CO2 buildup, overcrowding, stress, loss of open spaces etc? If these things matter then you should welcome the possibility of population stabilisation, or even a fall.
In any case, the world is still a long way short of population stasis. Even in the UK, our birthrate is bulging due to immigration and overgenerous child benefits.
To be sure, babies are nice to have but there is no scriptural basis for promoting large families or opposing contraception. I rather suspect that Christian fundamentalists allow their obsession with “family” and their dislike of “greenery” to colour their judgement.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:54:42 +0000

i think these are the effect of modern culture people are not interested to become parents now a days