quote:

Originally posted by Gen3r4l1ty There will be... the only reason there is a potential welfare issue is because of the big population boom. The solution is not to keep inflating the population. Earth is only so big, so eventually there HAS to be some kind of equilibrium.

Thankfully we have to ability to only have 1 child, and control our population Peacfully

Europeans aren't the ones "overpopulating" the planet, so they don't need a lecture. When people talk about "overpopulation," they're mostly saying, "Hey, all you poor countries, stop having so many kids!" The thing is, though, that having more kids is what will bring those countries out of poverty. More mouths to feed, sure, but also more hands to work and more brains to invent stuff. A net increase in population means a net increase in labor, and properly applied labor means climbing out of poverty.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Europeans aren't the ones "overpopulating" the planet, so they don't need a lecture. When people talk about "overpopulation," they're mostly saying, "Hey, all you poor countries, stop having so many kids!" The thing is, though, that having more kids is what will bring those countries out of poverty. More mouths to feed, sure, but also more hands to work and more brains to invent stuff. A net increase in population means a net increase in labor, and properly applied labor means climbing out of poverty.

tis very complex...let God think about it...we cant control ANYBODY

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The thing is, though, that having more kids is what will bring those countries out of poverty.

no it is not, actually the opposite is true. the poverty cycle will not be broken with simply having more kids. this is actually what happens and the problems gets worse. education is the key, not having more kids.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On OOKA-OOKA ME NACHOS ME PRESS KEYS ON COMPUTER GOOD

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Europeans aren't the ones "overpopulating" the planet, so they don't need a lecture. When people talk about "overpopulation," they're mostly saying, "Hey, all you poor countries, stop having so many kids!" The thing is, though, that having more kids is what will bring those countries out of poverty. More mouths to feed, sure, but also more hands to work and more brains to invent stuff. A net increase in population means a net increase in labor, and properly applied labor means climbing out of poverty.

No one is lecturing the Europeans. In fact, the OP was about how their birth rates are low. I was commenting that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure there are less folks for the workforce, but in 1st world countries the number of folks needed to support the economy is dropping (mostly due to mechanization and modern production techniques).

As for the poorer countries crapping out kids; it is true that more people = more workers, but the problem with that is the fact that due to starvation, disease, and poor education, a good percentage never make it into the workforce. You just get more farmers to work on barely arable land for minimal profit.

___________________
What?

its all about what we want to define as the "lowest form of life"

soon everyone will want a 40' Plasma...



the more people...the more our resources are stretched...

As Slug would say (from Atmosphere)...

"Trying to Find a Balance"

Last edited by st3nc on Dec-04-2007 at 22:01

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 no it is not, actually the opposite is true. the poverty cycle will not be broken with simply having more kids. this is actually what happens and the problems gets worse. education is the key, not having more kids.

Once you have enough food to feed everybody (which is certainly a problem for some places), more kids = bigger labor force = more inventions and more robust industries. Education is certainly part of it, too, since you need a skilled labor force to progress, not just a bunch of illiterate farmers.

The real problem is that too many countries are bogged down with tons of regulations and oppressive rule by dictators. Human initiative needs breathing room to flourish, and the rulers of many poor countries prefer to suffocate their own citizens for personal gain.

Pretty much every country has something that other countries want, whether it's cheap labor or raw resources or whatever. If people are allowed to make consensual trades with whomever they please, they eventually find ways to prosper once they get past the "starvation" threshold.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The real problem is that too many countries are bogged down with tons of regulations and oppressive rule by dictators. Human initiative needs breathing room to flourish, and the rulers of many poor countries prefer to suffocate their own citizens for personal gain.

+2

Unfortuantely those with little money have little power, and usually end up the bitch of someone with half a shred of intelligence and a lust for money and power.

___________________
What?

quote:

Originally posted by Gen3r4l1ty +2 Unfortuantely those with little money have little power, and usually end up the bitch of someone with half a shred of intelligence and a lust for money and power.

Or a Lust for Cock...like our cock gobbling president (haha thankfully I am in FREE country and I can say that)

More people is not a good thing haven't you ever been to a really large poor country like India or Pakistan or China? You need a good education and than you will be lucky to earning a hundred dollars a month. My father works for Reliance in Jamnagar, India. All the people who work in the refinery are chemical engineers even at the little jobs like control room. here in the states the control room people are high school educated. And than they have at least a team of engineers telling them what buttons to push. The average wage for a chemical engineer is 4-500 dollars but still that isn't even reality. Plus you would think gas is cheap but it isn't and the cars aren't cheap either. Oh, and the construction workers are as young as ten and they work six days a week from sunrise to sundown. They only get out early on sundays and that is it. More people equals more problems regardless of how wealthy a nation's GDP is.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The biggest countries in Europe all have fertility rates below the rate needed to sustain their current populations. The only reason that some of them still have positive population growth is that plenty of immigrants are moving in to compensate for the low fertility rates. Interestingly enough, these immigrants often have far higher fertility rates than the "natives," further shifting the demographic balance. One of the effects of a low birth rate is that it increases the average age of the population. Some demographers estimate that Europe's ratio of working to dependent (non-working) people will be 2:1 by 2050. This means, in effect, that in 2050 the income of two people will have to support three people; two working non-old people plus one old non-working person. That projection assumes that European welfare systems stay roughly as they are now. Anyway, a couple of questions to hash out: 1. Why are European birth rates so low? 2. Will these low birth rates (and the consequent aging of populations) result in the collapse or scaling back of welfare systems? 3. Some people have worried that the immigrants from Muslim countries will come to "outpopulate" the "native" Europeans, and that the values of these Muslims, which often include far less tolerance for political and religious dissent and far less sexual and reproductive freedom for women, will eventually come to predominate by sheer force of numbers. Is this worry a well-grounded one? Why or why not?

you want an opinion? give me a source.