2 thoughts on “Forbes post, “Will Fertility Rebound? New Study Says Yes””
Thanks for articles.
The planet is overcrowded with too many competing for finite resources, and the world population is still growing at the moment (see population predictions for Botswana, for instance). The result, of course, is global warming, as their aspirations for a higher standard of living are met.
Falling birth rates in the developed world would naturally reduce pressure to build more housing on scarce green field land (Britain has to import 40% of its food). The need to build yet more roads would also be removed.
It seems foolish to me that the developed countries are importing large numbers of people from the less-developed world (often with religeous ideologies hostile to the treasured values of their receiving nations) in order to maintain the tax base to sustain an aging population.
If 42 people in the world own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the planet’s total population (who made that wealth for the 42?), then those 42 and their slightly less fortunate ilk could be encouraged to supply the taxation base to sustain the rest of us in our old age.
Could it be that the women of the word are unconsciously and/or consciously bringing about a solution to these problems by limiting the number of children they produce to a level which will see world populations gently reduced to a more sustainable and comfortable size?
Regards.
Thanks for announcing the article about the possible effects from inherited fertility preferences! I’d say though that inheritance is probably going to continue to diminish its importance. After all we live in a society where we learn and adopt to a lesser extent from our parents and increasingly from other parts of society. And those parts of socitety tend to be the ones that tries to reach out, lead an impress others, grow by attracting followers from outside rather than living family lives and breed children of their own.
Thanks for articles.
The planet is overcrowded with too many competing for finite resources, and the world population is still growing at the moment (see population predictions for Botswana, for instance). The result, of course, is global warming, as their aspirations for a higher standard of living are met.
Falling birth rates in the developed world would naturally reduce pressure to build more housing on scarce green field land (Britain has to import 40% of its food). The need to build yet more roads would also be removed.
It seems foolish to me that the developed countries are importing large numbers of people from the less-developed world (often with religeous ideologies hostile to the treasured values of their receiving nations) in order to maintain the tax base to sustain an aging population.
If 42 people in the world own as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the planet’s total population (who made that wealth for the 42?), then those 42 and their slightly less fortunate ilk could be encouraged to supply the taxation base to sustain the rest of us in our old age.
Could it be that the women of the word are unconsciously and/or consciously bringing about a solution to these problems by limiting the number of children they produce to a level which will see world populations gently reduced to a more sustainable and comfortable size?
Regards.
Thanks for announcing the article about the possible effects from inherited fertility preferences! I’d say though that inheritance is probably going to continue to diminish its importance. After all we live in a society where we learn and adopt to a lesser extent from our parents and increasingly from other parts of society. And those parts of socitety tend to be the ones that tries to reach out, lead an impress others, grow by attracting followers from outside rather than living family lives and breed children of their own.