Yeah, the more educated, wealthy, and free a country is the lower its birthrate. Give equality to women and they won't be forced to have more children than they can support. I am guessing we will level off.
Over population
- Thread starter Elta
- Start date
Eran of Arcadia said:
Indeed as you run out of space I suspect, long time to go yet, compare England and the US on the Google Earth thing, the space you have in the US is just enormous. here you can't go 20 miles without hitting somewhere.
I hate the idea of overpopulation. We have too many people here now. I'm sorry to say this, but I'm sure that a WWIII will clean up the world's population a bit. A sad prospect, yes, but it seems to be one of the most reliable ways to clear the Earth.
And the China incidents are sad too. I read that women are commonly kidnapped from urban areas, and sent to the countryside to be married off to men. Sad thing it is.
And the China incidents are sad too. I read that women are commonly kidnapped from urban areas, and sent to the countryside to be married off to men. Sad thing it is.
Masquerouge
Deity
There is no and will not be any overpopulation. The huge increase in population that the Europeans countries have been through, and that a lot of Third World countries are currently experiencing, is a well-known demographic process known as demographic transition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
From Wiki, "demographic transition is used to describe the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates that occurs as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economy. Usually it is described through the "Demographic Transition Model" that describes the population changes over time. It is based on an interpretation begun in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson of the observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the past two hundred years or so. Most developed countries are already in stage four of the model, the majority of developing countries are in stage 2 or stage 3, and no country is currently still in stage 1."
This model has some limitations, of course, but it roughly says that a booming population is just an transitory state.
From Wiki, "demographic transition is used to describe the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates that occurs as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economy. Usually it is described through the "Demographic Transition Model" that describes the population changes over time. It is based on an interpretation begun in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson of the observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the past two hundred years or so. Most developed countries are already in stage four of the model, the majority of developing countries are in stage 2 or stage 3, and no country is currently still in stage 1."
This model has some limitations, of course, but it roughly says that a booming population is just an transitory state.
Tulkas12 said:
I hate how we are fighting off natural selection. I actually dislike how hospitals keep people alive to reproduce who should just be eliminated from the gene pool. It's a sad thing. And I may sound like a nazi, or one of the Columbine guys, but it is still sad that we are fightin Natural Selection by perverting the rules.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Tycoon101 said:
Give humanity one more century research on genetical engineering and this won't be much of a problem any more.
Masquerouge
Deity
Tulkas12 said:
I tend to agree with him, actually. I really do not see a good side to people with severe genetical defects that result in heavy physical or mental disabilities reproducing and inflicting their defective genes on their kids.
But this is not the overpopulation issue so I will stop discussing that here
GoodSarmatian said:
Is that along the lines of the Civ4 quote that says something like: 'In the future, it will be a sin for a couple to have a child born with a genetic diease' ?
Even then, lazy people in the future will be better fed than people than people who constantly worked for their food thousands of years ago. And that is just wrong.
Oh, and sorry for going off-topic.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Malthus was wrong, and will continue to be wrong.
Truronian said:
Not quite:
50% of couples get 1 boy
25% of couples get 1 girl, 1 boy
12.5% of couples get 2 girls, 1 boy
6.25% of couples get 3 girls, 1 boy
3.125% of couples get 4 girls, 1 boy
See? If this is as far as we take it (ie. couples are limited to 5 children max), it gives a ratio of 31 boys per 26 girls.
Zelig said:
Its a geometric progression. The principle its based on is that a couple will keep having girls until they hit a boy (Irrespective of how many girls they have), in which case the ratio is exactly 50:50 as the probablilties of a boy and girl being born are equal, and as such the expected value of boys born and girls born is equal (E(X)=P(X)^-1 in a geometric distribution). Of course, in reality the number of children a couple has is limited, which should in fact scew the results in favor of the girls (more all girl families), which should counteract the naturally slightly higher chance of having a male child.
Similar threads
