Population Control

Feb 2018
227
Manila
#1
Does Population control in a country really needed for economic growth?


To theist forumers here, will you not subscribe to other preachers' teachings that to go forth and multiply and God or a god will provide them for their needs the reason population must not be controlled?
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,932
Dispargum
#2
Economists love statistics and population control is one way to manipulate the statistics. Take for example per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product). If GCP holds steady while population declines, then per capita GDP rises. It looks like the country is getting wealthier and on an individual basis that might be true, but in fact the country is not producing more than it used to. In some situations, it might be easier to control population growth than it is to increase GDP. China has benefitted immensely from their One Child Policy, at least in terms of per capita GDP.
 
Jun 2015
5,713
UK
#3
what causes economic growth? It's a mix of several things. The government has to create a good environment for business - namely good infrastructure, less corruption, strong laws, good regulations, a well-educated population, an efficient tax regime, etc.

There also needs to be people willing to start businesses, and enough people needing work.

So population growth is necessary for economic growth. It makes sense, since more people alive means more demand for products, and thus more jobs are needed.

If population growth stagnates, then productivity (producing more with the same inputs) is needed, or better technology. But then Western countries since WWII have had immigration since growth rates have stalled, and there was (and is) demand for more jobs.

So population growth is good for an economy.
 
Mar 2017
869
Colorado
#4
what causes economic growth? It's a mix of several things. The government has to create a good environment for business - namely good infrastructure, less corruption, strong laws, good regulations, a well-educated population, an efficient tax regime, etc.

There also needs to be people willing to start businesses, and enough people needing work.

So population growth is necessary for economic growth. It makes sense, since more people alive means more demand for products, and thus more jobs are needed.

If population growth stagnates, then productivity (producing more with the same inputs) is needed, or better technology. But then Western countries since WWII have had immigration since growth rates have stalled, and there was (and is) demand for more jobs.

So population growth is good for an economy.
I had a theory ... or more of an observation ... that as economies improve, birthrates go down. You can go all the way back to Augustus Caesar noticing that the wealthy class wasn't having children & he tried to impose laws to "encourage" them. Birthrate in the US is down, so is Japan. I was looking for data to support my thesis ... but I found this.



So, I'm wrong. Birth control technology is more important than I thought. I wonder what the numbers mean? Bad graph. It's interesting that not only are the rates universally low, they're all converging on 2.5 ... whatevers. This website:
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/fertility-rates-keep-dropping-and-it-s-going-hit-economy-hard
... has a couple of paragraphs on "As Birthrates Wane, Economies Gain".

According to this, if we wait long enough, Russia will cease to be a problem? I don't think China is really worried: a change of legislation and they'll have a plague of babies.



Maybe I'm not as clever as I thought. The map says 59 countries, three are shaded ... the three have 46% of world population? This is a confusing map.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2017
869
Colorado
#5
59 countries have below sustaining birthrates.
These 59 countries represent 46% of the global population.
They shaded all of them, but only labeled 3 of the BRIC countries?

BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China.
--- not sure why this is important. BRIC is an grouping of countries that are at the same level of economic development.

I *THINK* that's it.

Oh jeeze ... and it's not correct. The US birthrate is 1.85 children per woman (2015). Replacement fertility rate is 2.1 ... so US should be shaded too.

Or maybe EVERYTHING is pointlessly shaded, and just the three countries are EXTRA shaded. I thought I had it. I just can't read this thing.
 
Last edited:
Likes: sparticulous
Jun 2015
5,713
UK
#6
well when populations are stagnant, this doesn't affect growth. It just means there needs to be better productivity. But it's a mix of many things. to say population growth alone is needed is false.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,932
Dispargum
#7
I just can't read this thing.

Forget the map. It only shows the BRIC countries, not fertility rates. Whoever included that map in a fertility article doesn't know how to use graphics.



Population growth does not necessarily mean economic growth. If an economy needs more workers then population growth can lead to higher total productivity, but if an economy is already fully exploiting its resource base, then a higher population is just more mouths to feed. There is no work for these extra people to do. The trend over the past century or so is to increase productivity through automation or other efficiencies rather than through increased population. If more workers are needed than natural increase provides, immigration is a better source of workers. It takes at least 18 years to turn a baby into a worker. Immigrant workers can be found in a matter of months - certainly much sooner than a higher birth rate will provide.


Dios, you're right about the relationship between wealth and birth rates. Birth control technology alone doesn't explain declining birth rates. People have to want to use the birth control before they will use it. People in poorer countries usually see large families as a source of both joy and security. Wealthier people usually find, or at least look for, joy and security elsewhere. Birth control is actually pretty simple. It has been applied in varying degrees for centuries. It's not dependent on 20th century technology. In the past, to reduce family size, people have delayed marriage, practiced infanticide, stigmatized adultery, practiced coitus interuptus, and other techniques. Your chart shows a greater use of birth control in recent decades because more people want smaller families because they are becoming wealthier. Charts showing education levels, mortality rates, and other indicators of wealth would show similar trends in the same parts of the world only 20 or 30 years earlier. People get wealthier, then they decide to have fewer children.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,209
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#8
Does Population control in a country really needed for economic growth?


To theist forumers here, will you not subscribe to other preachers' teachings that to go forth and multiply and God or a god will provide them for their needs the reason population must not be controlled?

There is a Yiddish proverb saying that "G-d has never ordered to someone to be stupid".


G-d wrote the rules ... to exist within those rules would be appreciable ... so ... better to find an ethical way to control population. Like using condoms, why not?
 
Dec 2011
2,206
#9
The cut in birth rates in the past few decades was because of increased prosperity. It wasn’t mainly caused by contraception, birth rates have been cut even where contraception is not generally available.
 
Oct 2016
114
Ashland
#10
Never mind dragging gods into the discussion, Malthus seems more appropriate.
Of course, as education becomes more general, folks tend to realize that the more of us there are, the less there is to go around.
Asked why he murdered his siblings, the little boy in Jude ,the Obscure replied,
" Because there are too many of us." This was over 130 years ago.
One of the great ironies throughout History is that as a nation succeeds in limiting population growth, folks from other countries that do not flood into the countries who do. And back up the Population goes!
Contraception certainly has played a part in the declining birth-rates of civilized, western nations. Remember China's attempt to restrict families to a fixed number of progeny, other than through BCPs? Infanticide, forced abortions, etc.
I wonder: is the current 'Media' push to legitimize, even glorify, Homosexual Marriage intended as a means of Pop. Control? Such was widely predicted by SF writers in the 1960s.
(Please note; I'm not speaking about sexual practices, here. Just the social contract.)

***
Thanks to all who posted above on this interesting and important topic.
 

Similar History Discussions