Population stabilizes at a lower amount.

Do you even know who the baby boomers were and why they were called the baby boomers? Because your statement seems to indicate that you don't.

I know that they were famous for being the largest U.S. generation ever born, and for rejecting traditional values, which included greater use of contraceptives. Beyond that I know little of them, but that really should be all that they are relative to the situation, because they represent rapid population growth in a developed country that has just begun to use contraceptives on a large scale.


[citation needed]

You're kidding, right? Do you not believe that U.S. population has continued to grow just as it did before the introduction of contraceptives, because that is beyond debatable. Here's a link, but any search of any graphical or numerical results will show that U.S. population growth went on virtually unchanged through the introduction of contraceptives. While one could still make the arguement that contraceptives help, even if they haven't in the U.S., this should make it clear beyond doubt that they are not a cure-all for rapid population growth.

@Codae, I was just reflecting on the irony, though the boomers themselves procreated rapidly as well. I was assuming that Contraceptives became prevalent in the post WWII era, but did not prevent the population boom. One could argue that the population needs more time to adjust to see real results, but the U.S. continues to grow rapidly after 60 years of contraceptive use, so I think it can officially be called less than a total success.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
I know that they were famous for being the largest U.S. generation ever born, and for rejecting traditional values, which included greater use of contraceptives. Beyond that I know little of them, but that really should be all that they are relative to the situation, because they represent rapid population growth in a developed country that has just begun to use contraceptives on a large scale.
No, your problem is that you are confusing exactly how they represent rapid population growth, they did so because their -parents- had a lot of kids, the baby boomers themselves had far fewer kids than their parents did.



You're kidding, right? Do you not believe that U.S. population has continued to grow just as it did before the introduction of contraceptives, because that is beyond debatable. Here's a link, but any search of any graphical or numerical results will show that U.S. population growth went on virtually unchanged through the introduction of contraceptives. While one could still make the arguement that contraceptives help, even if they haven't in the U.S., this should make it clear beyond doubt that they are not a cure-all for rapid population growth.
You are kidding when you use population growth to measure the effect of contraceptives right? Because population growth includes massive inflow of immigrants that is the hallmark of the United States, -birth rates- are what you want to use to measure it, and birth rates did decline significantly with the introduction of contraceptives. The exact reason why population growth in the US bucks the rest of the first world are immigrants.

BLFSfl.png


@Codae, I was just reflecting on the irony, though the boomers themselves procreated rapidly as well. I was assuming that Contraceptives became prevalent in the post WWII era, but did not prevent the population boom. One could argue that the population needs more time to adjust to see real results,
Oral contraceptives (that's the most important one) only gained widespread use in the 60s IIRC.
but the U.S. continues to grow rapidly after 60 years of contraceptive use, so I think it can officially be called less than a total success.
Immigration dude, immigration
 
No, your problem is that you are confusing exactly how they represent rapid population growth, they did so because their -parents- had a lot of kids, the baby boomers themselves had far fewer kids than their parents did.



You are kidding when you use population growth to measure the effect of contraceptives right? Because population growth includes massive inflow of immigrants that is the hallmark of the United States, -birth rates- are what you want to use to measure it, and birth rates did decline significantly with the introduction of contraceptives. The exact reason why population growth in the US bucks the rest of the first world are immigrants.


Oral contraceptives (that's the most important one) only gained widespread use in the 60s IIRC.Immigration dude, immigration

Alright, I'll go back to the drawing board. Hey, what is the scale of that graph? As it stand's I can't fully see its significance.
 
That's quite an arbitrary definition of the first world

The 'First World' originally meant countries aligned to the West, however after the Cold War it became synonymous with Developed countries, the list I used is the IMF definition.

(oh who am I joking you have no data backing you at all),

I have the data of the Censuses of various countries, the CIA and various international organizations backing me up as well as having an interest in demography.


nor, I should point out, has it being the case that other European countries having significantly different growth rates. In other words, even the countries that do not have negative growth rates are zero or close to it.

Would you like me to list the amount by which every European country with positive growth grew between 2000-2010, because I can.

The only countries in Europe with close to zero growth (defined as growth of 1% or less) over the last decade were Georgia (0.4%), Slovakia (0.6%) and Montenegro (1%).


Ok, so you managed to directly contradict yourself by first stating that only 2-3 small countries are approaching population stability and then agreeing with me by admitting that Japan has done exactly that?

No, I did'nt say Japan's population was stable, I said that over the last decade it had grown overall but that it started seeing negative growth starting in 2007/8.

Also, it's more than 3 that fit it, I was using Hyperbole to get across the fact that only a small amount of countries are near stable.



According to the chart Japan registered a drop in total population in 2007, I said 2008, are you really that stupidly pedantric?



That chart itself backs me up, starting in 1993 Russia had a negative birthrate continually every year except for 2000, when it was even, and then went back to negative numbers until 2010, from which point it's gone into the positives.


On the other hand, the lack of post-industrial or developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa which makes your statement meaningless when we are specifically talking about declining birth rates coming along with certain level of economic development which Africa has yet to reach, and the one country (South Africa) which even comes close to that stage has dramatically lower growth rates over the last few decades. And statistics on every other part of the world supports this "myth". Nor is what you are saying even mutually exclusive with what I'm saying: since infant and children mortality greatly declines with economic development.

I did'nt say the entire damned continent either, their are several African countries that are growing economically yet at the same time are not doing what countries in the West and Asia started to at the same period.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
The 'First World' originally meant countries aligned to the West, however after the Cold War it became synonymous with Developed countries, the list I used is the IMF definition.
Right, and obviously I'm referring to it in terms of GDP/capita.


I have the data of the Censuses of various countries, the CIA and various international organizations backing me up as well as having an interest in demography.
kk

Would you like me to list the amount by which every European country with positive growth grew between 2000-2010, because I can.

The only countries in Europe with close to zero growth (defined as growth of 1% or less) over the last decade were Georgia (0.4%), Slovakia (0.6%) and Montenegro (1%).
Which is well, not true, you can add Poland, France, UK, Italy, oh who am I joking much every major European country except Ireland (immigration) to that list, and that's -including- immigration as of 2012, which supports the thesis of DECLINING POPULATION GROWTH.

I mean you are also being awfully dishonest here when you insist on talking about overall growth (including immigration) over the last 10 years when the argument I'm making is specifically decline in birth rate over time, including over the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate
No, I did'nt say Japan's population was stable, I said that over the last decade it had grown overall but that it started seeing negative growth starting in 2007/8.
So, in fact, tends towards stability exactly as I've being saying?

According to the chart Japan registered a drop in total population in 2007, I said 2008, are you really that stupidly pedantric?
No, I meant the part about 1.1 million over last 10 years



That chart itself backs me up, starting in 1993 Russia had a negative birthrate continually every year accept for 2000, when it was even, and then went back to negative numbers until 2010, from which point it's gone into the positives.
No, it actually objectively hasn't gone into positive territory, can you not read a graph?

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/exp...ry:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=russia+population+growth

I did'nt say the entire damned continent either, their are several African countries that are growing economically yet at the same time are not doing what countries in the West and Asia started to at the same period.
What are we talking about here, "growing economically" or "hitting the same GDP/Capita at which birth rate drops"?
 
Last edited:
Which is well, not true, you can add Poland, France, UK, Italy, oh who am I joking much every major European country except Ireland (immigration) to that list, and that's -including- immigration as of 2012, which supports the thesis of DECLINING POPULATION GROWTH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate

Between 2000-2010 the population of France increased by 3.9 million, which is a 6.6% increase from the 2000 population of 59 million.

Though perhaps that's where the confusion is comeing from, I'm talking about the total growthrate over the previous decade, not the growth rate per year.

Also, as to that page itself, note that it's using estimates based on one (of several) of the UNs estimates, which honestly have'nt been off more than they've been right, rather than using actual numbers, which admittedly would be difficult to do without holding a census every year, but still.


So, in fact, tends towards stability exactly as I've being saying?

No, because negative growth is not stable, especially when the amounts the population descreases is increasing.


No, I meant the part about 1.1 million over last 10 years

According to the Japanese Census Japan had a population of 126,925,843 in 2000 and in 2010 had a population of 128,056,026, which means that Japan saw an overall population increase of 1,130,183 people over the last decade even with starting to suffer negative growth near the end.

No, it actually objectively hasn't gone into positive territory, can you not read a graph?

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/exp...ry:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=russia+population+growth

Yes, I can, and if you'll notice by hovering over the graph Russia had an increase of 0.01% in 2010 and 2011, while in the years I mentioned population growth was in the negatives, ranging from -0.1 to -0.5 every year except 2000, when it was 0%.

What are we talking about here, "growing economically" or "hitting the same GDP/Capita at which birth rate drops"?

As in becoming more prosperous and people starting to make more money.

For example, Angola has a Per Capita GDP of $5-6,000 (depending on if you use Nominal or PPP) while also having an annual population growth rate of 2.78 as well as a continually increasing population that has'nt shown any signs of slowing.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Between 2000-2010 the population of France increased by 3.9 million, which is a 6.6% increase from the 2000 population of 59 million.

Though perhaps that's where the confusion is comeing from, I'm talking about the total growthrate over the previous decade, not the growth rate per year.
And I point out exactly why that's a bad way of measuring things because immigration over and over again.



No, because negative growth is not stable, especially when the amounts the population descreases is increasing.
Now, this is actually pretty interesting and is actually a pretty valid point.

According to the Japanese Census Japan had a population of 126,925,843 in 2000 and in 2010 had a population of 128,056,026, which means that Japan saw an overall population increase of 1,130,183 people over the last decade even with starting to suffer negative growth near the end.
Ok, that's different from the Wikipedia figures


Yes, I can, and if you'll notice by hovering over the graph Russia had an increase of 0.01% in 2010 and 2011, while in the years I mentioned population growth was in the negatives, ranging from -0.1 to -0.5 every year except 2000, when it was 0%.
Ok, so we are really arguing over like 0.01 difference in population growth?


As in becoming more prosperous and people starting to make more money.

For example, Angola has a Per Capita GDP of $5-6,000 (depending on if you use Nominal or PPP) while also having an annual population growth rate of 2.78 as well as a continuall increasing population that has'nt shown any signs of slowing.
Except for like it does, considerably since the peak in the early 80s.

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/exp...O&dl=en&hl=en&q=angola+population+growth+rate
 
And I point out exactly why that's a bad way of measuring things because immigration over and over again.

Even if we remove immigration to France, natural growth still accounted for about 3-4% of it.


Ok, that's different from the Wikipedia figures

Actually, Wikipedia has sort of a bad habit of having several different numbers, when I use it I always look at the sources to ensure I'm using the numbers from the most reliable sources, usually the national census/statistics agencies.


Ok, so we are really arguing over like 0.01 difference in population growth?

When a place has continual negative growth for as long as Russia has and then you get two consecutive years (it may actually increase to .2% this year), then yeah, it's something to note.


Except for like it does, considerably since the peak in the early 80s.

http://www.google.ca/publicdata/exp...O&dl=en&hl=en&q=angola+population+growth+rate

I was going by absolute numbers as opposed to annual percentages, though based on that it does look more like Angola has entered a period of increasing annual rates for a few years then decreasing rates for a few more years and repeating the cycle.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Is it possible that the world population would stabilize at a lower number, say one or two billion?

and if so, how would the population remain stable, and not grow significantly?

i got this idea from the Vegetarian Timeline. seemed interesting.

Realistically, you will not like the answer. Higher death rates from disease, war or famine. The problem is disease tends to do boom and bust but can put a cap on local population. So can famine. War has downsides too.

Once can also have birth control invented earlier, and we might be able to move the pill into the 1930's. But I doubt it would be adopted earlier. For example, Mao "With every mouth comes two hands policy". China did not go to lower population mandate until 1979, well after technology/policies for lower population was well know. India has at best a mix record. Bangladesh got serious in the 1980's or 1990's. You lack both the technology and the will to cap the population at 2 billion with man made decisions since you would need to move the change back to before 1900, maybe 1850 to get the desired effect since population has a slow moving momentum.

So we are back to plagues. Have something like smallpox version two pop up in around 1900, followed by a more more deadly (infectious AIDS in the 1950's) will get you there. Maybe have to throw in something else.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
IIRC replacement level is 2.1

It varies based on childhood death rates. I have seen numbers from 2.1 to 2.4. The 2.1 implies about 4% of children do not reach their mid 20's. 2.4 implies more like 16%. There are also issues related to gender imbalances. For reproductive purposes, China 20 million excess men and India 40 million do not exists.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Even if we remove immigration to France, natural growth still accounted for about 3-4% of it.
3-4% of the 4 million figure you cited?

I mean this is really fits into the declining natural birth rate thing.

When a place has continual negative growth for as long as Russia has and then you get two consecutive years (it may actually increase to .2% this year), then yeah, it's something to note.
Or, you know, it's simply a deviation from the standard and does not accurately project long term trends towards renewed positive growth.
 
3-4% of the 4 million figure you cited?

I mean this is really fits into the declining natural birth rate thing.

No, I mean when you subtract immigration France's population grew by 3-4% as a result of natural growth in the last decade.


Or, you know, it's simply a deviation from the standard and does not accurately project long term trends towards renewed positive growth.

It does when you take into account the government creating programs to encourage population growth and a falling premature death rate.
 
Top