What ever happened to ZPG?

I totally agree, P.O.Me, except that if each woman limits herself to one, that would be a negative population growth, right?

I ended up with two children, one for their father, one for me. I'm from a largish family & we've talked about it... how it turned out for us. Together we five sibs are adding eight people to the next generation. Since those were shared with spouses, we're in the negative. (I just am not sure of exact percentage. ) There is nothing wrong with negative population growth either... the world overflows with humanity.

Sadly, large families are a lot more fun and I think my children are beautiful. Who doesn't?

According to the UN, between 1850 and 1900, the annual growth rate reached 0.5 percent. The rate surged to 2.0 percent by the mid-1960s, dropped to 1.7 percent by the mid-1980s, and declined to about 1.4 percent by 2000.

If it keeps on droping, we can expect the world population to stabilize around 9 billion people in the second half of the XXI Century, when today's children approach "retiring age".

Why is it still growing? Mostly because people live longer, and the mortality rates have fallen accordingly. It is now normal to have four live generations, while in the past the norm was three generations.

The world resources are enough for 9 billion people, but only if they are used rationally. The world levels of energy consumption and waste cannot be those of today's industrialized nations. Same thing with food.

Now, who the hell has the right to say: "Why do people think they have the right to have four or five children?".
Don't they?
Do you think the State or some power should limit a couple's, or a woman's decision?

What makes people have many children?
Religion? Hardly. If there is a religion against birth control, that's Catholicism, and two of the most Catholic countries in the world, Spain and Italy, have the lowest birth rates in the world: 1.15 children per woman in Spain; 1.19 in Italy.
There are 2 known factors which determine the number of children.
The most important one, worldwide proven, is the schooling of women. Women with more years of schooling tend to have less children. Period. It doesn't matter if they are Catholic, Muslim or Atheist. It doesn't matter if they marry at a young age or not. It doesn't matter if they live in the US, in Chile, in Hungary, in Iran or in Lesotho. It doesn't matter if they live in rural or matropolitan areas.
The second relevant factor, quite linked to the first one, is the economic situation. If children are an economic burden, women shall limit them to one or two. If they are of economic help (i.e. if they can start working at a relatively young age to help support the family), women shall raise more of them.

So you want Z.P.G? Empower women, both by schooling and economically.

I believe that men have an equally important role in helping to limit population. It should not be simply a woman's responsibility.

Men should be responsible, but ultimately it makes little difference. ZPG depends on females, and for biological reasons rather than social ones.

I hope, Craven, you are not in any way implying that the population growth is women's fault... but only that you count on their ability to limit men's instincts for the solution.

If men would, as some clever coach once said, "Keep their Peckers in their Pants," then we wouldn't have a problem. Instead, there seem to be a mighty flock of men whose sole purpose is to spread their seed; sexual politics at its finest.

Nah, not a "fault" thing, just biology. One responsible woman is worth several responsible men.

e.g.

There are 10 men and 10 women on one island and ten 10 and 10 women on another.

In one group 9 men are sterile and no women are sterile.

In the other 9 women are sterile and none of the men are sterile.

On one island you can have 9 babies in 9 months on the other you can have 1 (assuming no twins and such).

Due to biology the limiting factor is the females.

Oh my goodness, Craven, teehee, you've seen the light!

Can I report this to the Moderators????

Biology will always trump rationality. The only reason industrialized nations have lower population growth is because the cost of raising children is higher, and the benefits are less. So says I.

Anyway, virtually every natural population that experiences a population explosion experiences a subsequent die-off, then a smaller explosion, then a smaller die-off, and so forth until a new equilibrium is reached. It seems a little far fetched to me to think that humans will fare any differently. I mean, we're not that many generations removed from the industrial revolution, and even fewer removed from the invention of synthetic fertilizers, the two factors that have fueled the explosion.

Or maybe all the billions of us will get together, determine reasonable levels of consumption and reproduction, voluntary acquiesce to an equitable distribution of resources, and make a world music CD to sell in the place of tabloids at health food stores. Who knows?

The real cost for raising children is cheaper in first world countries.

In third world nations the cost makes no difference in the decision, those who can't afford the children have them anyway and send them off to beg. If they live they live, if they die they die.

Cost makes no difference to the uneducated decision. Give 'em free condoms and they sell them and keep the babies coming.

Education is the only real difference. I have yet to see a single exception to that rule.

But the perceived cost is higher. Economically speaking, our opportunity cost -- what we're missing out on by having children -- is very high, or at least we think it is, because of all the things we can do with our vast amounts of disposable income. By contrast, if you're opportunities in life are very limited whether you do or do not have a child, your perceived opportunity cost of having a child is fairly low.

This ties directly into the correlation between available education for women and reproduction that jjorge points out. A women who is not allowed education has fewer opportunity costs associated with child-rearing than a woman who has the option of pursuing a career or academic achievement. Not many people make choices in their own lives by comparing themselves to somebody in another country; they compare themselves to the person next door.

Yeah, but what makes the perceived cost higher? ;-)

Do you think that educated people are more likely to include the cost of education in the family planning?

One of the only reasons educated people have fewer kids is because they perceive the costs and plan their lives differently. It's not a phenomenon from country to country, you will find it within each country as well.

No need for an apples and oranges comparison of, say, Brazil to the US. IN Brazil alone you can test the thesis of education. The well educated in Brazil have far fewer children in Brazil.

The world is not fair.
I also believe men should have an important role in helping to limit population.
The fact is, they don't. Their role is minor.

One thing is to say "men are equally responsible as women for every child born or conceived", which is correct and should be done.
One thing is to say "It's good to teach men on birth control", which is correct and should be done.

Another, to tackle the issue in it's source.
There is little relationship between the number of children and the schooling of the father, or to the information available to him.
When it comes to women, the whole thing changes.
An informed, non-ignorant woman is less likely to get pregnant againt her will.
A badly informed, ignorant, macho man will have trouble getting a woman pregnant if she doesn't want to.

As you see, I'm not saying: "hell, it's the woman's problem, men can do what they want". I'm saying: "It is society's problem, and it is tackled via the empowerment of women".

Absolutely. But given the enormous economic disparity between nations, you are going to find very large differences in their overall growth rate -- and I very much doubt that you can address this through education without addressing education through economics. Time spent in school is borrowed time, and if you can't afford to borrow the time, you can't go to school, even when it's there.

Sorry, what was the topic?

Hmm, depends on what you mean by economics. There have been some very low cost programs that have made a big difference. Legalizing birth control costs little, for example.

In some places. In others it comes at enormous political expense. I don't oppose fighting the rising tide, building seawalls even, but ultimately I think the tide is going to win and nature is going to run its course. Innately pessimistic, I. And given to silly metaphors and awkward stances and shouting without thesis.

Alright, time to go breathe into a tube, or maybe dissect something, or something. Cheers.

Oh I agree that nature will run it's course. To me it's more about the quality of life till the peak and valley come. That it will come is inevitable. I'm glad I won't be around for the worst of it.

If you're dissecting go for a bunny.

Effective birth control itself is not cheap... "The Shot" costs $100 every few months and sometimes requires a $40 pregnancy test. Pills, for anybody still willing to use them, are an additional monthly expense. The later costs of possible complications... breast cancer for one... aren't figured into this either.

Diaphragms require fitting, must be replaced and require gel and regular use. Spermacides are only an adjunct, should never be considered the primary method... For that matter, imo, neither should condoms.

Women are the least empowered, least educated, least paid... and yet they are the ones, in the end, who must manage this, usually without any support from their governments or their religions. It is a sad, sad world.

And the guys getting one-night stands say "I thought she was taking care of it."

I'll give a few examples myself:

Average number of children of adult Mexican women with less than grade school:
On rural areas: 5.5
On metropolitan areas: 5.4

Average number of children of adult Mexican women with Secondary (Jr. High) schooling:
On rural areas: 3.1
On metropolitan areas: 3.0

Average number of children of adult Mexican women with some university education:
On rural areas: 2.0
On metropolitan areas: 1.9

Structural solution in poorest areas: scholarships for GIRLS.
Any childl with passing grades in these areas is given a scholarship, so the parents don't take him/her off school.
Grade school: $20 a month, both boys and girls, plus a yearly school package worth $20.
Jr. High: $33 a month for boys; $38 for girls, plus a yearly school package worth $24.
High School: $57 a month for boys; $68 for girls. plus a yearly school package worth $24.
Every family gets a monthly food package worth $15.
The scholarship money and the food packages are given to the MOTHER.
For the scholarship to be given, all the family must go to their medical appointments, and the mother must go to family planning talks.

To put things into context, the minimum wage is about $144 dollars a month.

This works much better in reducing the natality rate, than the vasectomy campaigns (money and prizes for getting a vasectomy) in India or the enforced "one child" policy in China.

FBaezer -- That seems a good solution that Mexico has worked out, especially the premium paid for girls to attend middle school and high school. Mexico's population rate has diminished in the last thirty years, right?

I certainly do agree with you, this is a much better method than enforcement or vasectomy. It is especially good because education provides lots of additional benefits beyond the lowered birth rate.