What ever happened to ZPG?

Fertility rate (children per woman)

Super! Then it's been cut by more than half in 25 years. I'm so glad for your country. That's bound to have a good effect on the entire society.

Yew, both men and women need to be involved in birth control. At the risk of giving TMI, my husband -- who has a phd in chemistry -- did not believe in diaphragms and insisted we use condoms, then would whine, "Aren't you at the end of the cycle so I don't have to wear a condom?"

As for educating women, I live in a community where almost everyone has a college degree -- or two or three. That these women chose to have three, four or five children is beyond me.

I don't think the planet can support 9 billion people. I don't think it can support the 6 billion currently here. 2 to 3 billion is enough.

Will read more and comment later.

BTW, Europeans pay much less for the pill than we do here in America. In Spain, a month's worth of birth control pills cost $4.

Hmmmm - Oz is at almost ZPG, for natural increase. There is a big debate here about whether we should worry (being big and empty) or be happy (being unbelievably dry, with very fragile soils and eco-systems - there is actually a reasonable argument that we have exceeded capacity). Meanwhile, governments mutter and grumble, and occasionally try to think of ways to get women to have mor ebabies - and we continue to import people.

I understand that one of the most effective forms of lowering births in countries that need to is educating women - generally, not just about birth control....

Very old dirt in Oz...

yep - exhausted...

Just out of curiosity, and probably something lazy me could find out more easily elsewhere -- where are most Australian immigrants coming from these days? Is it still largely Eastern Europe, or is it mostly Asian countries now (or somewhere else?)?

I am happy to look up - but it'll have to be when I get home from work...

Just thought you might have a general impression. (But, then, who the hell goes to Adelaide, anyway?)

Do all the college educated women in your community have three, four or five children?



On what basis?

I'm pretty sure Plain Old Me got those numbers from the group called Negative Population Growth. At least they have similar numbers. On that website they go into their reasons which consider food production, water resources, etc.

The current world population was 6,326,328,539 as of Tuesday, October 28th. Six billion, 100 million of those are not from the United States, but most of them would like a lifestyle similar to what they see in the movies with clean water, schools for children, jobs for adults, healthy food for all.

The Optimum Population Levels for Britain, for example, look to a stabilisation and reduction to 52 million by 2050 and further towards 30 million by 2130. In 2002, the level was almost 60 million which was a 20% increase since 1950.

The United States, on the other hand, has had an 85% increase in population since 1950. Current population for the USA as of October 28th, is 292,449,546, up from 151 million (1950).

How do I know the planet can not support its 6B? I live in Massachusetts where there is a real issue between "allowing" fishermen to earn a living and supporting the fish stocks, which have dwindled alarmingly.

For some species of game and food fish, the big breeders are almost gone. Species that weighed in at 200 pounds a few years ago now are being caught at 76-90 pounds.

Consider too that most of the world's food comes from 4 or 5 countries which use only a fraction of their arable. This is not an argument that the arable can be expanded: dlowan was just in a little exchange about the fragile state if the soil in her country/continent. Soil breaks down.

Think, also, of the fact that despite increased education, our opportunities are actually limited. My daughter, soon to be 26, will have to work throughout the life-time of any child she might have. I had a choice and she won't.

As for the women who live here, many of them my age have two children but those kids are either in college or are recent graduates. I have three and I am not alone. Younger mothers seem to think three makes a family. Four and five kids are not uncommon.

I'm not sure if it's that simple. People with education can get better, more enjoyable jobs, and may want to work at those jobs rather than taking care of kids forever. In other words, it's not just, "I learned that it's difficult to take care of kids and costs a lot of money, so I will have fewer kids and work more," it is the other way around, too. ("I learned skills to obtain a good job I really like, so I will have fewer kids so I can keep working at it.")

patiodog's opportunity cost applies, too -- someone poor, uneducated, without a good job and without prospects can (and often does) have children specifically so the children will later support the mother.

There are also huge cultural influences -- what makes a "good" wife, etc., etc.

Education is the key to all of this, indeed. The program fbaezer talks about is very interesting.

As a former welfare worker, I feel the notion that women have kids to bring in money for their own support is exaggerated although some of these women have kids to provide themselves with unconditional love.

We too often think that people with high school educations are incapable of higher level thought. Just yesterday, I heard a woman with a high school education defend her decision to have a ten year spacing between children.

And I am sure it's not that simple. :wink: After all, sociology is not simple and that's why I never claimed it was that simple.

If I've brought this up myself, I did not mean it intranationally (don't remember if I did), but on a global scale and on a much longer time frame than the immediate present: one of the good things about having kids, especially where there is no social security, is that they can support you in your dotage. (Even in a social security state this is useful, but that's another kettle of silvery watery critters.) For my great-grandparents this was a very real consideration, and they all had very large families -- large by current standards, anyway. It's not a question of "I'm going to put this kid to work so that I can sit back on the couch," it's "If I don't have kids, who's going to take care of me when I can't support myself any longer?"

"One of the only" is pretty simple. "One of many" is more complicated.

Agree with patiodog about having kids for support... that's what I meant, as well.

It's definitely one of the only meta reasons. I don't want to write much so I'll just use your examples:



I agree, they perceive the costs (time) and plan their lives differently.



This was the thing I was referencing when I said that I'd never said that it was this simple.



Yes, and it doesn't have to be 'later' either. In third world countries the 'later' is 'immediately' and the kids are often out on corners begging all day while the mum's at home taking care of the one in the oven or the one who just popped out and the dad's off making his $30/month salary or altogether absent from the scene.

The kids obviously don't get an education this way and the cycle renews itself.



Yup, and getting back to my point education makes parents view their children differently for a variety of reasons.

An ignorant twit might see a litter as being an immediate source of income. During the last year I was in Brazil I used to teach poor kids English on weekends and I'd often try to convince them to accept a job with me and go to school instead of begging at the stoplights. What I'd have paid them to do is distribute flyers advertising my school's commercial language services in the business districts. I couldn't offer more than the standard rates for such a service but very few of them accepted the deal because they could make more money begging. There was a large movement in Brazil advocating that people stop giving money at stoplights and donate to organizations that would give assitance only to families who kept their kids in school but it felt like fighting an ocean with a teaspoon.

I don't think the education is simply a matter of learning not to have more kids than hairdos. I think education changes one's outlook on life because it teaches them about the very structure of the society. I don't think this excludes cultural aspects because education is a big part of culture.

Education teaches people what the true cost of raising a kid is. It teaches them that having a kid is more than just the ability to keep the kid alive and when parents perceive that difference and set out to make a better life for themselves and their children they usually figure out that there is a ceiling to how many they can support in terms of fiances and time while maintaining a decent quality of life.

I never really mentioned anything being simple but if i were to do so I'd say: "education is the answer, it's as simple as that." :wink:

I ended up writing a lot and would be wasting my day off if it weren't for the fact that I can't go outside because of the stupid (read uneducated) fire and the smog. Fire sucks, it's not even ameliorated by education.

A small contributor (not making a big point here) to the effect is that people who have received an education (or a tattoo, or whatever) tend to view it as more essential than those who haven't, and so it becomes a necessary cost of raising their kids. (I, for instance, probably wouldn't have a kid unless I had the capacity to put money aside for their college education; for most people this would not be a limiting factor.)