Global Population [On Topic]

[BartsDaddy 7]

Those 19 were 70 years ago. The birth rate has gone down in the last 70 years. so I doubt those 19made much of a dent.

[billvon 2,990]

19 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

Those 19 were 70 years ago. The birth rate has gone down in the last 70 years. so I doubt those 19made much of a dent.

Yes.  Hopefully the kids did not follow the example of their parents.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

On 5/10/2024 at 11:02 PM, billvon said:

Yes.  Hopefully the kids did not follow the example of their parents.

Most don't.

My ex-wife's mom had 9 siblings (total of 10 kids by her grandmother).

Some of the kids had no offspring (one died fairly young), the rest had 2 or 3.

[lippy 918]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Most don't.

My ex-wife's mom had 9 siblings (total of 10 kids by her grandmother).

Some of the kids had no offspring (one died fairly young), the rest had 2 or 3.

My Mom was the oldest of 13, 12 of whom made it to adulthood. Same deal where she had 3 kids and most of her siblings had 2-3, a few didn’t have any. Out of that (my) generation, my siblings each had 2, I had none and most of my cousins are at 1 - 2 a piece…..the cousins who had more could be plucked straight out of the opening scene of Idiocracy. 

[billvon 2,990]

21 minutes ago, lippy said:

The cousins who had more could be plucked straight out of the opening scene of Idiocracy. 

Which is the challenge of any plan that relies on more education/resources making people better family planners.  There's always that right side of the bell curve.

[kallend 2,026]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:40 AM, CygnusX-1 said:

That is not quite true. In advanced economies, we CHOOSE to make them expensive. We could also choose to make our offspring live like they do in poorer countries. We could build mud huts for them to live in. Give them only 1 pair of good clothes that they wear to school. The rest of the time they would only be shirtless & barefoot working out in the field to help the family. There is no reason for them to have that expensive IPhone, toys, computers, or a college education. These are all choices we make, not the fact that we live in 'advanced economies'.

We wouldn't remain an advanced economy for long if we did that.

The USA is significantly below replacement rate in births/woman - hence the problems forecast with SocSec and Medicare. That is why all this anti-immigrant rhetoric from the MAGA crowd is not only evil, but stupid too (but is also why it works so well with the MAGAs).

[kallend 2,026]

26 minutes ago, lippy said:

My Mom was the oldest of 13, 12 of whom made it to adulthood. Same deal where she had 3 kids and most of her siblings had 2-3, a few didn’t have any. Out of that (my) generation, my siblings each had 2, I had none and most of my cousins are at 1 - 2 a piece…..the cousins who had more could be plucked straight out of the opening scene of Idiocracy. 

My parents both came from large families, and were towards the young end in each case.  I had 40 first cousins and only two of them were younger than me (most are dead already).

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

6 minutes ago, kallend said:

My parents both came from large families, and were towards the young end in each case.  I had 40 first cousins and only two of them were younger than me (most are dead already).

Hi John,

Both my folks had 7 siblings [ 8 kids in each family ].  I had 43 first cousins with 14 younger than me.  Most of my first cousins are also now dead.

Times indeed do change,

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Out of those 43, one had an Associates Degree, one had a Bachelor's degree [ me ], one had a Master's degree & one became a medical doctor.  In my family, on both sides, the ticket to success was getting a union job; or marrying a guy who was in a union.

[johnhking1 96]

44 minutes ago, lippy said:

My Mom was the oldest of 13, 12 of whom made it to adulthood. Same deal where she had 3 kids and most of her siblings had 2-3, a few didn’t have any. Out of that (my) generation, my siblings each had 2, I had none and most of my cousins are at 1 - 2 a piece…..the cousins who had more could be plucked straight out of the opening scene of Idiocracy. 

There were 6 siblings in my moms family, they had a total of 7 children.  On my dads side there were also 6 siblings with 9 children born, 5 adoptions and one sibling died during WWII and had none.

[wmw999 2,444]

My husband was one of 6. He has 5 natural nieces and nephews, and 2 adopted. I’m one of 3, and there are 5 in the next generation, with two being supremely unlikely to reproduce, and one I don’t think will. So there’s always us… 

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,306]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

My husband was

Over the years I've observed the passion for children depends on the size family in which one grew up. Large families - the next generation wants few and vice versa. 

[lippy 918]

7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Over the years I've observed the passion for children depends on the size family in which one grew up. Large families - the next generation wants few and vice versa. 

There’s definitely some truth to that. I know quite a few only children who went on to ensure they had at least two kids. That said, there’s a difference between what constitutes a ‘large family’ today vs a couple generations ago, no?

I’ve now got the Jim Gaffigan bit stuck in my head where he’s talking about needing to say ‘Catholic’ after the family size: “6 kids, Catholic”

[BIGUN 1,306]

10 hours ago, lippy said:

That said, there’s a difference between what constitutes a ‘large family’ today vs a couple generations ago, no?

Truth. A large family in the sixties was 6 kids. Now three is considered large. Also, until the 60's the Catholic church felt artificial birth control was a sin. 

 

 

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Also, until the 60's the Catholic church felt artificial birth control was a sin. 

It still does. Most choose to ignore it.

[johnhking1 96]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Truth. A large family in the sixties was 6 kids. Now three is considered large. Also, until the 60's the Catholic church felt artificial birth control was a sin. 

 

 

The Catholic Church is loosing members, they need to bump up the members and the $$$.

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

Hi folks,

An interesting comment from the net:  Look, not to cast aspersions on mothers on this, their (our) holy day but: Harder than previous generations?! I’d say tell that to your great-grandma, who was feeding eight kids she didn’t especially want, plus their dad, three times a day without a refrigerator or a dishwasher or the right to vote, but you can’t. She’s finally getting some rest because she’s dead!

Half of U.S. women say they were lied to about motherhood, new research shows - oregonlive.com

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 643]

The good news is that birth-rates dropped below replacement rates (2.1 children per woman) circa 1970.

Canada now fills that gap in our labor market by inviting in a half-million immigrants per year. Canadian-born, white, English-speaking, heterosexual men are now a minority at the bus company where I work. 

[riggerrob 643]

Funny how the regions with the highest birth-rates are now at war: Gaza, Orthodox Jews living in Israel, Nigeria, etc. are wracked by war.

The pattern has not changed since the Bible was written.

[brenthutch 444]

On 5/6/2024 at 7:04 PM, billvon said:

Thoughts:

1) It will come too late to avert the worst consequences of climate change if that's the only mitigation.
2) The strongest predictor of number of births per woman is educational level.  (Also the strongest predictor of child outcomes.) So if we concentrate on female education worldwide, we can drive this to happen sooner.

Female education is only part of the equation, development is the other. As we all know as a population develops and becomes more affluent its carbon footprint skyrockets. So don’t pin you hopes of CO2 reduction on population stabilization/decline.

U.S per capita CO2 per year = 15+ tons

(Even super green California is 10+ tons)

 Ethiopia 0.10 tons

Edited June 6, 2024 by brenthutch

[BIGUN 1,306]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

As we all know as a population develops and becomes more affluent its carbon footprint skyrockets. So don’t pin you hopes of CO2 reduction on population stabilization/decline.

1. Sounds like you're talking about I=PAT

2. You address point 2 of Bill's post, but missed the part about, "if that's the only mitigation." 

or, 

3. You're actually agreeing that we should do as much as possible, in every area, to reduce greenhouse emissions. 

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

As we all know as a population develops and becomes more affluent its carbon footprint skyrockets.

That's been the paradigm - up until now.   Hence things like rail travel, solar power systems, and EVs so that affluence can REDUCE carbon footprints, as in your California vs the US example demonstrates.

Quote

So don’t pin you hopes of CO2 reduction on population stabilization/decline.

Which is what I said.

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

3. You're actually agreeing that we should do as much as possible, in every area, to reduce greenhouse emissions. 

No, the social cost of CO2 is negative. When one balances the costs of increasing rates of hurricanes, floods, droughts and wildfires (that would be Zero when adjusted for inflation and development by the way) against the benefits of cheaper and more reliable energy with the additional benefit of longer growing seasons and greater crop yields, just why in the hell would we be wanting to reduce CO2?

Edited June 7, 2024 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

That's been the paradigm - up until now.   Hence things like rail travel, solar power systems, and EVs so that affluence can REDUCE carbon footprints, as in your California vs the US example demonstrates.

What my example demonstrates is that Ethiopia has an exponentially lower CO2 footprint than California. If lowering CO2 is the goal Ethiopia is the model, not California. This of course reveals the ludicrously of the “net-zero” concept and why it is doomed to failure.

[brenthutch 444]

15 hours ago, billvon said:

That's been the paradigm - up until now.   Hence things like rail travel, solar power systems, and EVs so that affluence can REDUCE carbon footprints, as in your California vs the US example demonstrates.

Which is what I said.

If the world followed California’s example, CO2 emissions would more than double, as global per capita emissions are less than five tons per year. 

Edited June 7, 2024 by brenthutch