[Lurker]

Now this is a good post.

There are only two shortages on earth.

The first one is a shortage of Capitalism.

The second is a shortage of enough people to take advantate of what little Capitalism we have left.

L

[gusopol3]

Islam is still weak, but it is growing. Never mind the terrorists; check the birthrates.

From the frequently posted article by Sobran, "Belloc's Prophecy." Sobran doesn't do his homework.

[Tribune7]

Bump

[RLK]

So how many billion people inhabit the earth today? And how many were there 40 years ago?

[RJayneJ]

Click the icon for My Two Cents!

Quote of the Day by Diogenesis

[mercy]

A simple cost/benefit analysis of the prospect of having children will dramatically prove it is no longer worth it. Add to this the feminazi revolution and every man knows he's gonna get the shaft and she'll get the kids leaving him with just the bills .... and more and more men realize it is REALLY not worth it. Men once desired children for reasons of 'empire'. No matter how miniscule the empire might be ... sons at least could help build it and continue it after the progenitors death. Today quite the reverse is true. The brats will more likely bankrupt you and squander anything you are able to build anyway.

[joathome]

I'm still trying to figure out how "each couple must have slightly more than two children...." LOL

Each? Each?

Please explain this to me. :)

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump.

[mlocher]

good post. i like reading the views of a logical thinking person who enters a field and is not bogged down with the baggage of having been educated in that field. sometimes they proved great insight as they see thing others do not.

[quebecois]

Random thoughts on the birth dearth:

Its darn hard to have a baby. Being a man, I can't say that I've done it, but my wife is currently 7 months pregnant with our second child (a boy). Physically, she has had a variety of health problems caused by this pregnancy (esp back problems). Bearing children isn't easy, and I think that given the choice, most women will opt for fewer rather than more. And nowadays, they have a choice.

Kids used to be the mechanism that people used to save for their old age. The capital which was spent raising them was returned as profit when you were an old koot and they had to take care of you. Now people can just use 401K's instead....which require a lot less diaper changes (unless the market collapses...then you may need to change your own diaper).

Feminism is partly to blame as well. Its no accident that Hillary only had one child. Many women believe that their real purpose in life lies in the professional/work world. Children are a hinderance to obtaining that law firm partnership. This is especially bad in that it disproportionately affects high IQ women.

But I think that one of the major causes of this trend is the materialism inherent in modern "McWorld" culture. Our consumer/producer oriented society boils everything down to a transactional, profit-loss relationship. Children are bad because they hinder the efficiency of this system, and are thus discouraged. Everyone knows that for all of the "family friendly" policies of various corporations, they all basically view such relationships as a nuisance. As they used to say in the Navy "If we wanted you to have a family, we'd have issued one to you".

Companies reward those employees who are most compulsive about their work...which means they reward those who spend the least time with their families. And less kids require less time.

Our economic and social system boils down to this: Work all the time, spend all your money on worthless consumer goods, max out all of your credit cards, and have no kids which distract from the cycle. And when you die, you can be replaced by a new cohort of immigrants to begin the cycle again.

Problem is...when this system extends everywhere, where will the new immigrants come from?

Also, humans are not interchangeable robots. They have culture, religion, etc. You just cannot import vast new populations to replace your existing, sterile one and not expect to suffer major dislocations.

The issues of populations, immigration, and differential growth rates, will dominate this century...and it may not be pretty.

[aposiopetic]

grateful-for-the-facts ping

[XBob]

This article is a confused, contradictory, pile of crap, and totally avoids addressing the truth. Like the liberals, up is down and down is up: -

World Population
6.199 billion - now
3.912 billion - jan 1970

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

[XBob]

As I said, what a pile of crap, IMHO we need about 100 more years before it reaches 0 percent increase:

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt

Historical National Population Estimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999

Source: Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau
Internet Release Date: April 11, 2000
Revised date: June 28, 2000


National Population Average Annual
Date Population Change Percent Change

July 1, 1999 272,690,813 2,442,810 0.90
July 1, 1998 270,248,003 2,464,396 0.92
July 1, 1997 267,783,607 2,555,035 0.96
July 1, 1996 265,228,572 2,425,296 0.92
July 1, 1995 262,803,276 2,476,255 0.95
July 1, 1994 260,327,021 2,544,413 0.99
July 1, 1993 257,782,608 2,752,909 1.08
July 1, 1992 255,029,699 2,876,607 1.14
July 1, 1991 252,153,092 2,688,696 1.08
July 1, 1990 249,464,396 2,645,166 1.07

July 1, 1989 246,819,230 2,320,248 0.94
July 1, 1988 244,498,982 2,210,064 0.91
July 1, 1987 242,288,918 2,156,031 0.89
July 1, 1986 240,132,887 2,209,092 0.92
July 1, 1985 237,923,795 2,098,893 0.89
July 1, 1984 235,824,902 2,032,908 0.87
July 1, 1983 233,791,994 2,127,536 0.91
July 1, 1982 231,664,458 2,198,744 0.95
July 1, 1981 229,465,714 2,241,033 0.98
July 1, 1980 227,224,681 2,169,194 0.96

July 1, 1979 225,055,487 2,470,942 1.10
July 1, 1978 222,584,545 2,345,120 1.06
July 1, 1977 220,239,425 2,204,261 1.01
July 1, 1976 218,035,164 2,061,965 0.95
July 1, 1975 215,973,199 2,119,271 0.99
July 1, 1974 213,853,928 1,945,140 0.91
July 1, 1973 211,908,788 2,012,767 0.95
July 1, 1972 209,896,021 2,235,344 1.07
July 1, 1971 207,660,677 2,608,503 1.26
July 1, 1970 205,052,174 2,375,228 1.17

July 1, 1969 202,676,946 1,970,894 0.98
July 1, 1968 200,706,052 1,993,996 1.00
July 1, 1967 198,712,056 2,151,718 1.09
July 1, 1966 196,560,338 2,257,375 1.16
July 1, 1965 194,302,963 2,414,172 1.25
July 1, 1964 191,888,791 2,646,993 1.39
July 1, 1963 189,241,798 2,704,061 1.44
July 1, 1962 186,537,737 2,846,256 1.54
July 1, 1961 183,691,481 3,020,323 1.66
July 1, 1960 180,671,158 2,841,530 1.59

July 1, 1959 177,829,628 2,947,724 1.67
July 1, 1958 174,881,904 2,897,774 1.67
July 1, 1957 171,984,130 3,081,099 1.81
July 1, 1956 168,903,031 2,971,829 1.78
July 1, 1955 165,931,202 2,905,348 1.77
July 1, 1954 163,025,854 2,841,662 1.76
July 1, 1953 160,184,192 2,631,452 1.66
July 1, 1952 157,552,740 2,674,851 1.71
July 1, 1951 154,877,889 2,606,472 1.70
July 1, 1950 152,271,417 3,083,287 2.05

July 1, 1949 149,188,130 2,556,828 1.73
July 1, 1948 146,631,302 2,505,231 1.72
July 1, 1947 144,126,071 2,737,505 1.92
July 1, 1946 141,388,566 1,460,401 1.04
July 1, 1945 139,928,165 1,530,820 1.10
July 1, 1944 138,397,345 1,657,992 1.21
July 1, 1943 136,739,353 1,879,800 1.38
July 1, 1942 134,859,553 1,457,082 1.09
July 1, 1941 133,402,471 1,280,025 0.96
July 1, 1940 132,122,446 1,242,728 0.95

July 1, 1939 130,879,718 1,054,779 0.81
July 1, 1938 129,824,939 1,000,110 0.77
July 1, 1937 128,824,829 771,649 0.60
July 1, 1936 128,053,180 802,948 0.63
July 1, 1935 127,250,232 876,459 0.69
July 1, 1934 126,373,773 795,010 0.63
July 1, 1933 125,578,763 738,292 0.59
July 1, 1932 124,840,471 800,823 0.64
July 1, 1931 124,039,648 962,907 0.78
July 1, 1930 123,076,741 1,309,741 1.07

July 1, 1929 121,767,000 1,258,000 1.04
July 1, 1928 120,509,000 1,474,000 1.23
July 1, 1927 119,035,000 1,638,000 1.39
July 1, 1926 117,397,000 1,568,000 1.34
July 1, 1925 115,829,000 1,720,000 1.50
July 1, 1924 114,109,000 2,162,000 1.91
July 1, 1923 111,947,000 1,898,000 1.71
July 1, 1922 110,049,000 1,511,000 1.38
July 1, 1921 108,538,000 2,077,000 1.93
July 1, 1920 106,461,000 1,947,000 1.85

July 1, 1919 104,514,000 1,306,000 1.26
July 1, 1918 103,208,000 -60,000 -0.06
July 1, 1917 103,268,000 1,307,000 1.27
July 1, 1916 101,961,000 1,415,000 1.40
July 1, 1915 100,546,000 1,435,000 1.44
July 1, 1914 99,111,000 1,886,000 1.92
July 1, 1913 97,225,000 1,890,000 1.96
July 1, 1912 95,335,000 1,472,000 1.56
July 1, 1911 93,863,000 1,456,000 1.56
July 1, 1910 92,407,000 1,917,000 2.10

July 1, 1909 90,490,000 1,780,000 1.99
July 1, 1908 88,710,000 1,702,000 1.94
July 1, 1907 87,008,000 1,558,000 1.81
July 1, 1906 85,450,000 1,628,000 1.92
July 1, 1905 83,822,000 1,656,000 2.00
July 1, 1904 82,166,000 1,534,000 1.88
July 1, 1903 80,632,000 1,469,000 1.84
July 1, 1902 79,163,000 1,579,000 2.01
July 1, 1901 77,584,000 1,490,000 1.94
July 1, 1900 76,094,000 --- ---


NOTE:
National population data for the years 1900 to 1949 exclude the
population residing in Alaska and Hawaii. National population data for the
years 1940 to 1979 cover the resident population plus Armed Forces overseas.
National population data for all other years cover only the resident
population. Estimates of the population including Armed Forces
overseas are as follows:

1919 105,063,000
1918 104,550,000
1917 103,414,000

National population data for the years 1900 to 1929 are only available
rounded to the nearest thousand.

Data for this table comes from Current Population Reports, Series P-25, Nos.
311, 917, 1095, and our National Population Estimates web page. All
Population Division publications may be obtained by writing to Population
Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233; calling the
Statistical Information Staff at (301)457-2422; or by e-mailing a message to
POP@CENSUS.GOV (please include telephone number).

[hammerdown]

ping

[Paul C. Jesup]

Could someone please give me a time table as to when this country's Welfare/Tax System begins to breakdown due to, to many people getting old and retiring.

Also, as a side note no one has mentioned on this thread. Very soon a very large chuck of the government's employee base is going to retire and the government is having a real problem finding people who want to work for the government.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[FReethesheeples]

Malthus, I am told, by the end of his own life was not a "Malthusian."

He stopped being right about 1790, when food production first started outstripping population growth.

With teh agricultural revolution (foremerly known as the Green Revoltuion, before the enviro-radicals took over teh term "Green", Malthusianism stoped being a valid descriptive & predicitive & prescriptive model

--- with a vengeance ---

in the laast 50 years;

food production is not an issue;

food DISTRIBUTION (shortages) is a POLITICALLY-CAUSED (Communist-Marxist-Totoalitaraian) phenomenon,

wherever starvation & shoratges exist in the world,

whether in Ethiopia,

Somalia,

Haiti,

the former USSR,

PRC,

Afghanistan,

Iraq,

SE Asia,

or the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa, No. Africa, South America, Central America, the Middle East, or the Far East.

People, with a modicum of education, and ACCESS TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,

are ASSETS, NOT LIABILITIES, more people are ASSETS to GROWTH, not detriments to success, even CHINA (PRC) will grow because it has made its people,

even under conditions of political repression,

generally ASSETS, not liabilites, in creating economic growth, with China's projected gross GDP (NOT per-capita GDP) outstripping the US's by about 2012,

--- because people are assets, not liabilities,

--- & Malthus was WRONG, dead wrong.

[FReethesheeples]

EXCELLENT POST!

Peruvian Hernando de Soto's earth-shatteringly important book, and work in numerous developing nations, seen in his (profound and highly empirical studies in):

"The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West & Fails Everywhre Else"

complements this picture,

by showing that

Title for real property

is the Foundation and basis for wealth creation and Capital formation,

and that even the POOR in LDCs have "Dead Capital" untitled capital in untitled property that VASTLY EXCEEDS 100-150 YEARS (!!) of Maximum Foreign aid from the "have" nations,

thus turning all the Leftist-ignorant-wrongheaded assumptions of Development Economics on their head!