>> ^Enzoblue:

Russians have crap, numbers-wise, for their next generation of workers. Birth rates are down and death rates so high that they stand to lose more than 20% of their population by 2050. Putin said of this in 2006, "The most acute problem of contemporary Russia". They're trying to up the sexcapades to get kids pumping out more. They even had a kiss-fest in Moscow and a 'day of conception' in June, offering prizes for babies etc.


It's like Panda's...soon we'll have russians in zoos and people will be shoving them together yelling "SAVE YOUR SPECIES!!!"

Russians have crap, numbers-wise, for their next generation of workers. Birth rates are down and death rates so high that they stand to lose more than 20% of their population by 2050. Putin said of this in 2006, "The most acute problem of contemporary Russia". They're trying to up the sexcapades to get kids pumping out more. They even had a kiss-fest in Moscow and a 'day of conception' in June, offering prizes for babies etc.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.
I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc
This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.
This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.

>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.


Nobody got that? He says it right there: "I'm a Troll, I'm a Troll!"

I'm sure as an unbeliever you think it is purely coincidental that founding this country on Christian principles led to it being the greatest country in history within 200 years.

I'm sure that you also think that its a coincidence that since they started taking God out of our schools and public life in the 60's, violent crime has gone up 500 percent, murder rates have tripled, divorce rates have doubled, STD rates are up 200 percent, fatherless households increased from 6 to 40 percent, unwed birth rates of 10-14 year olds up 500 percent etc

This isn't how it ought to be, or how the founders intended. We have a society that accepts all of these diverse views because of the Christian principles of personal freedom and liberty. Atheists, using these great freedoms afforded to them by our judeo-christian heritage, want to use them to dismantle the very foundation of what gave them those freedoms in the first place. What in the world do you think is going to happen when you tamper with the foundation? It is all going to fall apart, as we see it happening today.

This country was founded on a covenant with God, and much like israel, when we reject our Creator, judgement isn't far behind. The secularization of this society is basically suicide.


>> ^rebuilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you don't believe that America is founded on judeo-christian beliefs then you don't know anything about American history.
There's little point in debating the way things used to be, when you should be debating how they ought to be.

Famine is a lack of successful agriculture - faster dripping from the bottom.
People aren't starving in lush fields and full employment.

Those where agriculture is succcessful it's no where near saturated or 100% efficient and waste and consumption has no controls on it what so ever.

Of course "the world" can handle more people.

It will create pressure for find and use food better. It will probably also force people to leave areas where food can't be grown to sustain them. All creatures migrate - it's national boarders which are unnatural.

This video is also mis-leading in saying the birth rate remains the same. In all countries which build a larger middle class the birth rate drops considerably. Most of Asia is well on the way to developing out of this '10 children per family' model.

sustainable growth is an oxymoron... what you mean is low or zero growth, where the number of things "dying" are more equal to, or do equal, those things being "born". Logistic growth etc.

Logistic growth population models imply density dependent population regulation. Such a model assumes that when populations increase in size (1) the per capita birth rate decreases (as a result of competition for resources) and/or (2) the per capita death rate increases (as a result of competition for resources, predation, or the increased spread of disease). Thus, there is a population size at which the per capita birth rate equals the per capita death rate. At this population size, known as the carrying capacity, the population growth rate is equal to zero.

- http://www.eoearth.org/article/Logistic_growth

Good math resource here: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffeq/logistic/index.html

also look up Albert Bartlett's lectures, they might be sifted. He lays it out in no uncertain terms how growth is regulated on earth.

1. the us does not have paid maternity leave, some companies do, most don't. it's at their discretion.

2. what many corporate operations will have is short term disability insurance, which is paid by employee and employer.

3. many corporate operations will also offer paid time off, the day i found out i was pregnant, i did not spend any of my pto, saving it all up for my 6 weeks maternity leave.

4. the first few months of life are EXTREMELY VITAL to proper human development. even if you think people should have less babies (and most of them seem to be agreeing with you, btw) we still need a significant amount of new people born each year. unless you want ignorant malnourished sociopaths changing your pants in your nursing home, it's in your best interest to be supportive of strong prenatal and post partum policies.

5. capitalism is built on the backs of women. 1000's upon 1000's of unpaid hours creating future workers for the machine. if you want the best workers possible, even if you want less of them, it's in societies best interest to be supportive of motherhood. it's doing a piss poor job right now. and you pricks wonder why kids are so stupid and bratty and burning their cities to the ground? i bet not a little of that is due to the increasing difficulty of balancing being a mother, with paying all the bills. and in the end, motherhood is the single greatest risk factor for poverty in old age.

6. fuck your patriarchal bullshittery "live within your means, if i want bicycle around europe blah blah" arguments.

7. thinking that good maternity policies "incentivise" people to have more kids is silly. people who are actually fortunate enough to have planned pregnancies realize they're going to be raising the kid longer than a few months. and birth rates are on the decline in the developed world.

@JiggaJonson

Yes, fair enough

Here are some examples of material on the other side of things:

"[In the US] Women with college degrees can be expected to complete their childbearing with 1.6-2.0 children each; 1.7 for non-Hispanic white, 1.6 for non-Hispanic black, and 2.0 for Hispanic women. For women with less education the total expected number of children are: 3.2 children for those with 0-8 years of education; 2.3 children for those with 9-11 years of education and 2.7 for high school graduates."

http://library.adoption.com/articles/mothers-educational-level-influences-birth-rate.html

"The relation between fertility and intelligence has been consistently negative for successive birth cohorts from to 1900 to 1979, indicating the presence of dysgenic fertility for all of the 20th century studied thus far."

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/...

Many sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

It seems like it should probably be noted that relying on fertility rates alone will underestimate the degree of change in genetic frequencies because groups also vary in the length of their generations. Most of us see our impulsive high school classmates who start families early with little planning (e.g. generation length: 15-25 years), and then watch other driven & long-term thinking classmates not reproduce until their early thirties, if ever (e.g. generation length: 28-40 years). I'm 31, and virtually no one in my high school class has reproduced yet, aside from the ones who did so in their teens or early twenties.

As someone who has watched California go from one of the most-skilled states in the country to one of the least-skilled states (sometimes even coming in 50th place out of 50 states) purely due to changes in the population, I'd be surprised at any hypothesis that suggests there's no change in genetic frequencies occurring.

It doesn't bother me to say that because I'd bet my life that reprogenetics will phase out gaps in IQ and other socially valued traits, but critical mass on that probably won't occur until the latter half of the century.

One statistic that holds true pretty much everywhere is a very very strong anti-correlation between education of women and birth rates. Need more sex ed. My school district had some sex ed in 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th grade but down in the bible belt or shitty inner city schools (or both, in this case) they might not have any.

@peggedbea evidence: Roll it up and flush it down the toilet. It'll fit.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not that they don't know what condoms are. There are millions of people in the world who know what condoms are and still don't use them (or use them properly); the key is in teaching why to use them.

The girl does say that there should be classes that teach the girls about protection and about not getting pregnant so I imagine it is a bit of both.

@Reefie As for the comment about the 1 child per family as per China, I don't even know where to start. First there's the massive problems associated with the policy in China; ie. the 4-2-1 problem (one child not able to help support 2 parents and 4 grandparents), the increase in infanticide, the huge gender disparity, etc. Then there's the fact that its results have been exaggerated; better economic status and better healthcare are more effective at controlling birthrates than the one-child policy, plus China's most dramatic decreases in birth-rate occurred before the policy under the voluntary "late, long, few" policy. And finally there is the fact that most "Western" countries are facing a population decline already - with so few people being born to the Baby Boomers that there will not be enough people to support their pensions. I'm not sure what the suggestion had to do with this video, but it doesn't really have a place in any realistic discussion about population.


>> ^bareboards2:

I'm not sure that this is the reason. You think these kids don't know what a condom is? This isn't a rural isolated school.
There have been anecdotal reports of young women getting pregnant so that they will have someone who will love them. To me, this epidemic of pregnancies is a reflection of low self-esteem and poverty, of young women seeking to feel relevant and empowered.
Teachings about condoms isn't going to fix that.

>> ^Skeeve:

In all seriousness though, I'd be willing to be this has something to do with abstinence-only sexual education and a lack of education about, and availability of, protection.
When are people going to realize that teenagers have sex whether you want them to or not? Providing education and protection is the only real solution.
>> <

>> ^RedSky:

... but in the example he gives, curing preventable diseases is hugely beneficial in reducing mortality rates, which tends to lead to lower birth rates, and higher standards of living for all over time.


I believe that's exactly how he meant it; that was his example of unquestionably helpful charity. But he made the further point that it doesn't go nearly far enough when the real problem is a child living in abject poverty.

I kind of see what he's saying but he generalizes too much for me to fully see what's he's getting at.

I agree with his notion of cynicism of green products, of purportedly charitable companies who are ultimately motivated by profit and positive brand image. Makes me draw to the comparison to how people who go to funerals aren't really honoring the individual so much as satisfying their own need for acceptance and release.

But he oversimplifies the issue. Yes, for example when food relief is dumped into country, and destroys local markets by drastically lowering the price to below cost, the effects are dependance and worse economic conditions in the long run, but in the example he gives, curing preventable diseases is hugely beneficial in reducing mortality rates, which tends to lead to lower birth rates, and higher standards of living for all over time.

@blankfist, Ok, I'll cede that tax policy is not something we will agree on.

Regarding immigration - it's a generally accepted fact that the Western World depends on immigration to maintain a solid tax base and a stable work force. Issues of integration (I hate that word) make international news with some regularity, but are a side issue. The fact is, any thinking western nation has to allow immigration or face the prospects of a shrinking workforce and a growing retirement demographic due to a decline in birth rates. In a sense, western nations rely on immigration to continue the welfare system - no real fallacy there, just a cause & effect.

I do enjoy these discussions - mental exercise is always good.

I'm with Kymbos on this one. Satire is funny when it's accurate.

It's best when there's no need to exaggerate the hilarity of the shortcoming in question:
Prius Warriors that have babies.

Stanhope is accurate that the media fails to mention birth-rate as means of carbon control.

Tho it skews the issue when Stanhope labels environmentally aware parents as hypocritical blowhards.

The birth-rate is not that the problem.
The rate of consumption is.

Righto, calm down. The key reason he's wrong is that overpopulation is not occuring in developed countries. In fact, if not for immigration from developing countries, most advanced industrialised nations would now be experiencing declining populations. It's the developing world that has high birth rates. So rich couples having their 1.8 babies is not a significant cause of population growth. There's a clear link between increasing wealth and declining birth rates.

I like a lot of his work, but he's Doug Stanhope - he's no Bill Hicks.

Oh, and Jon Stewart does his research - he rarely has the facts wrong.