Having good population growth is good for economic and geopolitical reasons. Inevitably, if populations continue to grow, our technology will have to get to the point where we can harvest resources from other places in the solar system. That's a pipe dream because I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating *real* moves. I mean, mission to Mars? I'll believe that when I see them doing something.

 

I disagree with the idea that our population declining is a good thing. It might not be bad if everyone else's were declining at the same time. I think immigration is good, but only inasmuch as the immigrants buy into societal values. However, I do agree that the population growing will be bad unless we develop technology to overcome obstacles like overcrowding, illness, and malnutrition that will arise. Right now, those are by and large regional or local conditions, but they'll become the norm unless we can figure out new ways to secure more resources.

Well yeah, the population will grow if theres incentive for it or various factors allow for it and as I said, if the resources don't support the population, then the population will decline. We probably have to wait until the baby boomer generation passes into the ether to see the real trajectory, but it's more that the population growth is just slowing down to a more reasonable pace than the massive burst in the 20th century.

 

I think we as a species will be just fine with birth rates and there are no hints of any sort of birthrate crisis as certain people (nobody on this forum) make it out to be. Like any population, we are just reaching an equilibrium, but we still have to deal with the social and economic issues that come from reaching an equilibrium or a slow, but steady, population growth. The massive spike in population growth in the 20th century wasn't the norm for most of history.

Hmm, I've made no people. I feel like I'm letting you all down.

I'm more looking at it from a large state power projection point of view. Population growth can only be in equilibrium if it's universal. The countries that are seeing a decline in population weren't suffering from deprivation in the first place and now some of those countries are seeing their own cultures declining as well. Some values are under attack from within those cultures and an influx of immigrants who harbor competing views. Perhaps values will change under the weight of new popular views about freedom of speech, due process, and presumption of innocence to name just a few. The problem is the left often seems to see the very idea of culture and values as a reason for ridicule or attack. However, Every group of people has shared values and something that we might as well call a culture. The difference is in western society, there's been enough room to sustain a common culture while having space for a number of powerful counter-cultures. Perhaps we're no longer so strong as once we were.

 

See, I have no doubt that our species has plenty of room to stick around and can probably sustain tremendous population growth as long as technology keeps pace. That's been the way of things for a long time, although there's the ever present danger of assuming things that have always been will always be. It's not our species that concerns me, it's our culture. It's our values. It's our ways. Sure, if those decline all is well. Almost impossible to kill ideas, maybe even completely impossible in the grand scheme of things and enough people, but one does like to see one's own side on the winning side of the battle. The wheel of time turns slowly and the pendulum can go a long way before it begins its backswing.

 

So, native population growth would be greatly beneficial for the United States, as well as assimilating immigrants, but the things that have made us great have made us fat. Our failings won't be our demise. Our successes have resulted in incontinence and complacency that might be enough. Then again, all earthly things fail eventually.

Mike Huckabee went on a tear recently drawing comparisons between Trump and Churchill, evidently after having watched Darkest Hour. I think the irony of Trump's rallying cry of "America First" last being used by the crowd that was very much in favour of throwing Churchill under the bus might be lost on Huckabee.

Keep in mind that population growth isn't going to happen forever, it would require infinite resources. Population is going to increase until it reaches some sort of equilibrium.

That's assuming there is anything like an equilibrium.

There is an argument to be made that decline in birth rates could be a one way trip.

 

Keep in mind that population growth isn't going to happen forever, it would require infinite resources. Population is going to increase until it reaches some sort of equilibrium.

That's assuming there is anything like an equilibrium.

There is an argument to be made that decline in birth rates could be a one way trip.

 

 

Population equilibrium is not constant, as it constantly changed by new scientific discoveries, declining natural resource and living space. Also changes in climate and even changes in societal norms effect on it.

 

Birth rates and populations can decline century and then have sudden change of course and start rapidly increase for next century and then go back to decline and so on. We as species have big advantage in fact that we can actually monitor and effect on our population growth and decline and our birth rates in multitude of ways.

 

Baby boomer generation was actually very untypical thing to happen, not because of lots of babies were born but that majority of them survived to adulthood, which is thing that is new phenomenon made possible by advances in medical technologies, food production and housing. I mean world population crossed over 1 billion in 1800s and now we are closing 8 billion. Any other species on this planet cannot sustain such population growth for ~200 years without of aid from humans even then it is usually becomes soon unsustainable.

Birth rates and populations can decline century and then have sudden change of course and start rapidly increase for next century and then go back to decline and so on.

Births could start to massively increase but nothing indicates that they will.

Historically fertility rates that have fallen below replacement level are almost never coming back to that point.

 

Birth rates and populations can decline century and then have sudden change of course and start rapidly increase for next century and then go back to decline and so on.

Births could start to massively increase but nothing indicates that they will.

Historically fertility rates that have fallen below replacement level are almost never coming back to that point.

 

Well, the massive baby boom is skewing the number a little as that chunk of the population is dying off and the growth isn't as fast as it used to be in developed countries.

 

As Elerond said, that population boom that we had over the past 200 years was unusual in historical terms and things will get to a point where things are unsustainable for that amount of population.

Edited December 29, 20178 yr by smjjames

 

Population equilibrium is not constant..

 

 

A genuine population equilibrium is by definition a little c constant though- not in the same sense as some of the physics big C Constants of course, but it does mean that the population stays within a fairly narrow band and does not fluctuate significantly in the medium term, and barring significant outside interference into the system.

 

All the rest of the stuff is correct, but what it means is that we cannot readily apply terms like 'population equilibrium' to humans except in an abstract form. For most biological systems you could actually use it as a practical term as well but, as noted, humans' ability to alter the environment and make rational (or not) decisions as opposed to instinctual ones makes us a special case. We obviously can't ignore the rules permanently though, and that biologically speaking leads to one inevitable result: a population crash.

 

It's actually one of the more obvious logical fallacies when you have governments talking about both reducing pollution, human footprint and the like and wanting to keep permanent economic and population growth going. At some point you have to decide to stop population growth, and at that point a lot of the 'natural' economic growth from things such as house building and house price inflation goes as well.

Well, I meant equilibrium as in reasonably stable, not increasing or decreasing at a rapid pace.

 

You also have the shift from larger families (which were neccesary due to survival rates) to smaller families, which definetly changes the population dynamics over time.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/30/berlin-set-women-safe-spaces-new-years-eve/

 

Funny. There is already a safe space for women near Berlin. It's called Poland.

 

Saw that one on the BBC site too actually.

 

Also sounds like they could benefit from some fireworks regulations because (according to the brietbart article) last year firefighters had to put out 400 fires caused by fireworks. If that's Berlin alone, that's just nuts.

So.. what happens if  a man enters these 'no go' zones? Do they get arrested, murdered, and raped for daring to go there? Isn't this a clear case of seism? Of stereotyping all men as monstrous rapists? I have a funny feeling that this considred illegal in those countries.

 

LMAO

So.. what happens if  a man enters these 'no go' zones? Do they get arrested, murdered, and raped for daring to go there? Isn't this a clear case of seism? Of stereotyping all men as monstrous rapists? I have a funny feeling that this considred illegal in those countries.

 

LMAO

I just always get the sense that they can't be open about racial stuff; same deal as a lot of countries in the anglosphere, so they can't just make it a Muslim-free zone. I think that it fits the whole new diverse Europe, what with their Holiday zones surrounded by festive concrete Lego bricks and checkpoint entrances. It is just the price to pay to live in a diverse society.

Shouldn't those women be happy with no men around? :D

Shouldn't those women be happy with no men around? :D

 

...Did you ever see a happy person on public transit?

 

Shouldn't those women be happy with no men around? :D

...Did you ever see a happy person on public transit?

All the time. They're mentally ill, but still..

"Did you ever see a happy person on public transit?"

 

Actually, yes. Annoying creatures but they do exist.

I don't think we have a dedicated MidEast politics thread (well, there was the liberation of Mosul one), so...

 

The protests in Iran have gone into the third day and now there are reports of violence. It started over economic issues and then it just spiralled out from there due to existing discontent. I've also seen comments that it seems bigger (in size and being a big deal) than the Green Revolution eight years ago.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/30/middleeast/iran-protests-intl/index.html

BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42524610

 

I checked brietbart maybe an hour ago and they didn't have the reports of violence yet, which were very recent.

 

Whether this evolves into something remains to be seen, but it's sort of like a spark igniting a pool of flammable material, you don't get that level of protests without some underlying discontent.

 

According to The Guardian, there were also chants of reinstating a monarchy and the late shah, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/30/iran-protests-trump-tweets , but um, take that with a grain of salt if you will because the monarchy wasn't exactly popular back in the day.

Edited December 31, 20178 yr by smjjames

Take everything with a massive grain of salt. Most in the media and many governments are absolutely desperate for it to be a big deal; but the protests are far, far smaller than the 'Green Revolution' ones- and that revolution failed outright. There's a huge number of fantasy fulfillment tweets and the like being fired off about what they wish were true rather than what is. That's why there are a lot of 'weird' things being reported. If you're a 1979 expat Iranian you may well want to believe that, deep down, real Iranians love their Shah still; if you're a Saudi shill you want to believe that brave 'rebels' have seized a 200k city and an army depot full of guns.

 

A lot of the information comes from unsourced twitter users. I've yet to see video of any crowd of even 10k people which the 2009 protests went way past from the beginning, except the pro government counter demos that seem to have 100ks. Don't read the full twitter thread of that link though, it will give you cancer just as much as the anti Iran tweet chains will.

More that I have no idea how popular a monarchy would actually be in Iran and don't know how popular the old shah is. Members of the royal family are still around and the current 'crown prince' (at least the first person in line for the throne if the monarchy was re-established, th) is pretty popular apparently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Pahlavi,_Crown_Prince_of_Iran Although there is an older daughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnaz_Pahlavi if Iran decides to allow women to be in line for the throne.

I hate how everyone from the outside wants to tell Iran what to do. Especially this revolution garbage. It won't work that way, it will just make everything worse and at best, prevent real reformation of the country. But I guess that's what outside forces want anyway.. just destabilize yet another middle eastern country for whatever reasons.

I see it as a bit of a tug of war between wanting to say something because Iran is pretty repressive (not as much as Saudi Arabia however) and they are brutal towards protestors and between trying to support them but at the same time not give the Iranian government an excuse to label the protests as being caused by enemies (which they already have started saying).

 

I've even seen a few articles by Iranians who say that Trumps tweets (and others, but Trump in particular) are not helpful since it has nothing to do with Trump or anybody else and is purely an Iranian phenomenon and the protestors might not even want help from America or others.

 

That said, there have been observations that these protests arise from deeper discontent than the 2009 ones were and are coming from a different segment of the population. A few have said it's more akin to a civil rights movement than a revolution or revolt, but it's still too early to see where it might go.

How is that a bad thing? Why would you want schools to employ people with that sort of background?