Population: Europe declines while US grows, why?

I'm going to go with: it's just part of the cycle. We have more land and room for more immigrants so it will take us a bit longer to get where Europe is. But it will happen.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
CalamityJane wrote:
No, no, you said that it is a bleak cycle for womens rights - thus my question.

Economic options for women are neither bleak nor destructive, it gives
women finally the freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives.

I'm all for womens rights, and for improved economic status for everyone. I never expected this question to lead to the idea that improved options for women might lead to dramatic population declines (adversely affecting various societies).

It was your comment combined with the statistics from the article which implied that possibility.

I'm not sure why you Wouldn't see giving women options wouldn't lead them to exercising the option not to have more children....

I do see that. I agree that's what's happening. I'm just extending the result of that to what the article suggested and connecting the two things.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

I'm all for womens rights, and for improved economic status for everyone. I never expected this question to lead to the idea that improved options for women might lead to dramatic population declines (adversely affecting various societies).

It depends which women ros. Women's rights has become confused with the rights of a few women who stroppily maintain that they are "independent" which they probably are due to their wave making being popular with editors and their "independence" allowing them the freedom to get promoted using the oldest trick in the menagerie.

Ordinary women are the losers.Schopeneur explains it somewhere.

They have less babies and encourage others to do the same. They want careers, as if motherhood isn't a career, and they encourage other to want the same. They infiltrate left wing parties where waves are not enough. They make tusamis then.

With longer living people an imbalance arises in which greedy oldies demand ever more care and luxury leisure often for lengthy periods of time on the back of the declining young who can hardly afford a house unless both spouses work. So they demand child care provision on the state and it just rolls on and on.

Natch the young become enraged and when they lash out the ones well fixed bay for punishment and the jails fill up and non-productive work escalates.

It's all inevitable degeneracy. How far are non-whites off taking control of California either through breeding or immigration. Did you not notice the red/blue map at your last election. The red was one piece. No blue inside it and no red outside it. Like an inchoate nation.

I think goofing off is the only sensible idea.

0 Replies

What are you talking about, spendius?
If you're referring to Schopenhauer, he lived until around 1860 I believe,
and certainly is no advocate for women's rights as we see it today.

"A few women who stoppily claim their independence"? Where do you
live? Today, most women are independent due to financial freedom
gained through education and wise career moves.

Personally, I know no woman who is dependent on her husband, even
if she stays at home with the kids. What you're having in your image
is a scenario of 1920 where motherhood was the only means for
women to gain recognition, and even there it wasn't always assured.

I can see that men would prefer such a scenario where they are the
bread winner and ruler of the house, but it never will happen
again, thank goodness.

0 Replies

Quote:

Population: Europe declines while US grows, why?

Because all the sexy Europeans have emigrated to the USA, or are about to Real Soon Now (TM).

0 Replies

What is it about this sort of topic that brings out the real nuts?

Just for starters, so what if populations are declining?

Is anyone arguing that there are too few people in the world?

Education for women is the best contraceptive known to humanity.

Even if you are paranoid about demographics changing in the west, (and allowing for now that that that paranoia has a point), what makes anyone think that, as the fearsome non pearly white WASP immigrants increase in a western country, that their terrifying (to some) fertility does not gradually adapt to the prevailing norms of the pearly white and (oddly, in the same breath, evil and destructive...our Spendius seems to approve of nobody....except, perhaps, non breeding men???? honestly, just following the twists, turns and internal contradictions of what passes for his 'argument" is dizzying) degenerate women of the west...who dare have choices.

0 Replies

More fully worded than my comment, but along the same lines, Dlowan.

Although - Rosborne is saying, I think, that even with demographic changes homeostasis will occur still leaving enough loss of population to affect various social/economic structure. (correct me if you aren't thinking in that direction, Rosborne).

0 Replies

I can only talk about the situation in and around London, being the fact that both partners need to work full time when they first set out in life together, due to the cost of housing.
With the smallest place in a reasonable area now costing £180k or thereabouts, and the desire to buy rather than rent, the combined earnings have to be at least £45 -50k ($85k ?) per annum, without even talking about the initial deposit required of normally 5% (£9000), furniture, car and other expenses.

Many young couples around here really struggle in getting onto the property ladder. It's quite common for them not to think about having children until their income vs mortgage allows them to afford a family.
Many couples therefore wait until they are into their thirties, and it's quite common for couples to have only one child, or none at all.

0 Replies

Cal wrote-

Quote:

Personally, I know no woman who is dependent on her husband, even
if she stays at home with the kids. What you're having in your image
is a scenario of 1920 where motherhood was the only means for
women to gain recognition, and even there it wasn't always assured.

That's disingenuous Cal. Mom ruled the roost in the '20s. You are comparing a few examples of downtrodden women from those days which you have heard about because the contented ones didn't get publicity with the working women of today who are more or less wrung out from what I can see although I expect you will say they are all over the moon with their freedom to stand behind counters and checkout tills for eight hours a day.

Feminists have run women off a cliff as Schopenhauer predicted they would. Women have never had less power than they do today.They are in a daze. The better off they are and the better educated they are the dafter they are.

Nearly every female journalist who has run your agenda for 20 or 30 years is now back-tracking. A few have packed it in. An ex-editoress of Cosmopoltan has actually apologised on telly. And now Ms Greer seems to be in repentence.

But it's too late I'm afraid. You can have it. It's all yours as far as most men are concerned. Get running the country. Assertions count for nothing.

The sooner you take over the better. Bring the end on faster and get it over with. Women fronting programmes on football and rugby-how silly can they get? And as for being "embedded" with the Marine Corps- we all know what that means. The Officer's Mess.

Roll on the all woman House of Commons. We don't even want any token men. We'll go fishing.

It was never dependence/independence. It was partnership on the division of labour principle. Any man who gets married today has lost his marbles.

That's my take anyway. What do you think?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Is anyone arguing that there are too few people in the world?

I wouldn't mind more people in this world at all. More people means more composers whose music I can listen to, more poets whose novels I can read, more inventors whose gadgets I can use .... If the world's population grew to 15 billion over the next 50 years, our planet would probably be a better place than if its population staid the same.

0 Replies

spendius wrote

Quote:

It was never dependence/independence. It was partnership on the division of labour principle. Any man who gets married today has lost his marbles.

That's my take anyway. What do you think?

Yes, spendius, you lost your marbles.

0 Replies

CJ wrote-

Quote:

Yes, spendius, you lost your marbles.

That's exactly the style of debate I'm looking forward to seeing in the all woman House of Commons.

It's known as The Swinging Handbags.

It really is quite amusing especially when it is thought to mean anything.

0 Replies

dwolan wrote-

Quote:

, (and allowing for now that that that paranoia has a point),

Paranoia never has a point. If it has a point it isn't paranoia.

I approve of non-breeding men like I approve of not jumping into a pile of cowshit.

Quote:

honestly, just following the twists, turns and internal contradictions of what passes for his 'argument" is dizzying)

If it was "dizzying" how could you follow the argument. Or does "dizzying" mean anything dwolan can't follow.

What were the internal contradictions. I am always seeking to improve the quality of my discourse. Straighten me out my dear.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote-

Quote:

If the world's population grew to 15 billion over the next 50 years, our planet would probably be a better place than if its population staid the same.

I worked out on another thread a few months back that a baby born in America would, assuming stasis, which is unlikely with growth rates needing to be about 3% to keep the Dow on an even keel and the pensions connected to it, consume in its lifetime 20,000 barrels of oil.

Are you envisaging the 15 billion consuming at that rate or will some have to accept being cut out of the splurge. Or being made to.

0 Replies

dwolan wrote-

Quote:

Education for women is the best contraceptive known to humanity.

I read somewhere that the aboriginal population of Australia had remained constant for 25,000 years.

If that is true it would look like education for women is a wonderful fertility machine. Look how Western populations have exploded since education for women came in.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote-

Quote:

I can only talk about the situation in and around London, being the fact that both partners need to work full time when they first set out in life together, due to the cost of housing.

But isn't the cost of housing due to the demand created when both partners work? If the women stayed home sunning themselves in the back garden house prices would have to come down or men would have to be paid twice as much to keep the joint running. Hence women are working for nothing.

If, say, 5,000,000 London workers get £400 on Friday paynight there's £1,500,000,000 sent into circulation. If half of them packed it in could you see only £750,000,000 going round. No chance. A mild earthquake would be easier to deal with.

I know I'm oversimplifying to a very large extent but trying to make several hundred points at once isn't easy on the reader.

0 Replies

Enough of this tomfoolery!

Quote:

Population: Europe declines while US grows, why?

Is the US growth being participated in by Euro Americans? What's the breakdown for ethnic groups?

As I understand it France and Russia have state sponsored encouragement of motherhood. If anything the UK sponsors discouragement but not emphatically.

0 Replies

Now I'm all worried about non-whites taking control of California.

Damn Navajos & Apaches.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

More fully worded than my comment, but along the same lines, Dlowan.

Although - Rosborne is saying, I think, that even with demographic changes homeostasis will occur still leaving enough loss of population to affect various social/economic structure. (correct me if you aren't thinking in that direction, Rosborne).

That's correct.

Among the various questions and lines of opinion which are developing in this thread, the one you stated above is the one I was more interested in exploring.

0 Replies

Chai wrote-

Quote:

Now I'm all worried about non-whites taking control of California.

Damn Navajos & Apaches.

They are not a problem Chai. You saw them off goodstyle. In camps aren't they. It is progress that they are humane camps though.

They are humane camps aren't they? Are there any statistics on infant mortality in the camps compared to ,say, Austen?

0 Replies

Population: Europe declines while US grows, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know