Population Control

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
5,050
Canary Islands-Spain
#11
Let me write some reflections on the issue:

1. Why do poor countries have lot of babies and the more developed, the lesser they have?

We tend to think people from poor countries are very wrong giving birth to so many children and having large families. But we're the wrong ones: children are working force, since very early and for many years, free and cheap tools that the family use to provide themselves with resources. Once children grow, they can provide families with even greater resources, particularly when some members of the family move to the cities or abroad and get high incomes in comparation with local standards. Because the expending on their manteinance, education, entertaiment is minimal, the more children, the better.

When countries develop, particularly in those very well developed, working demands a high standard education, and in order to rise children with the needed knowledgs and skills, they have to be retired from working. At least for 16 years in most of the developed world, and to 23 in case of Universitary degrees, children are basically a huge investment with no return. So families focuse on a few, well cared individuals, with the expectation that they will be well positioned in the future.


2. Is it good or bad having lot of peoples?

It depends of the age and the place.

Lot of people means cheap labour, which enhance economic development. This is crucial for developing countries. The cheaper the labour force, the more chances of capital investment (invest 100, pay 50 in salaries in developed economies; invest 100, pay 10 in salaries in very underdeveloped countries). Labour is not something companies give to workers, labour is something workers give to companies, or hire better to say. However, if this labour force is not well trained, its value is greatly reduced. The perfect equilibrium would be a well trained and instructed labour force, massive and cheap = China

A mass of people means also a mass of consumers, which keeps the economy alive. In Spain, Italy or Japan, aging population is a huge problem: aside of mantaining elders, society did a huge effort investing in infrastructures to serve population, but with very low fertility rates, lot of people in productive age can't work properly (schools are the primary example) and large swaps of the country experience depopulation. China is starting to experience this problem. Also many labour positions are vacant (Germany). You solve this via migration.

The less expansive the population, the more costly labour force is. Costly labour force makes your economy unable to compete in most of economic fields. Might the economy compete in some high tech fields, but still you need some entry of people. This is not a problem, since the cost of labour force attracks labourers to fill the gap.

Thence the observed phenomenon of capital-human migrations: the capital goes where the labour force, and the labour force where the capital is

Having a growth rate controled have some advantages:

Your infrastructures are enough
The country is stable (having a bulge on young ages is synonimous of turmoils)
Resources and economic growth can achieve some equilibrium


In my opinion, demographic control is right, but not to the point of stagnatio or decline. In such case, the country is in serious troubles
 
May 2018
424
Ramgarh
#12
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.
Sometimes the population floods into space where the natives are not populous. That is what happened in the Americas and Australia.
 
Mar 2017
870
Colorado
#13
When I started out, I though "economic success = declining birthrate."

This UN report has more useful information:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/fertility/world-fertility-patterns-2015.pdf

Declining birth rates are seen in third world countries as well ... the main exception being sub-Saharan Africa. I think a statistician would say this is "multi-variate": one single variable (economic health) can't explain birthrate.

I thought I had heard that India still had a high birthrate. They're 2.4 ... close to the 2.1 sustaining level.
 
Feb 2018
227
Manila
#14
A country does not need a huge but mediocre educated population. A country needs is a well-educated population even it is few for economic growth.

Singaporean family planning says THE MORE YOU HAVE, THE LESS THEY CAN GET.

And if the problem is the production of goods, AIs are better than using huge amount of people like in China who created mostly cheap and defective products.

Only exploitative and greedy religions who only preach that huge population is necessary for nation's development. Why? because more babies means more followers who will give donations, sacramental fees, prayers for the dead and other pecuniary activities of the religion.

Besides telling its flock to procreate a lot is the subtle way to make them remain poor so that it can easily control them well. and of course exploit their ignorance because the poorer the man, the less educated he is.
 
Last edited:

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,491
Florania
#15
Chlodio said:
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.
Due to the economic crisis since the 1990s, Japan has experienced population stagnation (or even decline); then, don't forget that Japan remains overpopulated under the definition of global hectares.
The sheer costs of raising children has led to dropping birth rates in many developed and developing countries; China is a good example.
Many economists still believe in population dividend.
 
Dec 2011
2,291
#16
Malthus was wrong, he has been proven wrong many times.

It is not really true that "the more of us there are, the less there is to go around" if we are talking about human prosperity. Since Malthus' the world's population has grown about 10-fold, yet people are on average much more prosperous than they were then.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,111
US
#18
I don't know many people who pop out babies left and right today. I do know many who have chosen to have no children. In the developed world, the population growth rate is nominal and in some nations it is regressive. I have always found it interesting how some make the issue of population growth, specifically telling - and in some cases enforcing - others from having children their mission in life. Their obsession is confusing. If you're not procreating, you won't have any posterity. The world isn't going to end in your life, so, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die and the world will no longer be your concern.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/
 
Feb 2018
227
Manila
#19
Is China right to implement birth rate control? two children per couple.

Am I right that a country should focus on creating well-learned population population even it is few for economic growth than asking the populace to procreate a lot even most families cannot afford to raise and feed their children?

Am I right that if mass production of goods is the problem, AIs are better than using your huge population to manufacture mostly cheap and defective products?

I hope some experts and well-learned professors will answer my questions.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,111
US
#20
Is China right to implement birth rate control? two children per couple.

Am I right that a country should focus on creating well-learned population population even it is few for economic growth than asking the populace to procreate a lot even most families cannot afford to raise and feed their children?

Am I right that if mass production of goods is the problem, AIs are better than using your huge population to manufacture mostly cheap and defective products?

I hope some experts and well-learned professors will answer my questions.
With all due respect, "experts" and "learned professors" should not be making personal decisions for people. Otherwise, where is one's freedom? Each person should choose if they wish to have children and how many. There aren't many more personal decisions and human rights choices. Now, if somebody chooses to have children they cannot support, that may be a matter of public policy.
 

Similar History Discussions