Shift in Human Demographics

[Vash The Stampede]

Highly doubt this. Most I think we'll see in our lifetime is a slow down of aging, those who think we'll be able to reverse aging are far too optimistic.

This is why I like paying attention to tech news, cause I get to hear about this stuff all the time. I'm a computer nerd down to heart, but computer tech is boring lately. So I pay attention to the new hot topic, and that's CRISPR. I have a computer science degree and I would so love to go back to school and learn CRISPR. It's just crazy what can be done with it. Can't afford to go back to school. Hopefully we get Bernie with that free education.

Anyway, from what I hear most of the anti aging tech in the 2020's will be medication based. Pills with side effects, but hey it'll make you biologically younger. CRIPSR is cheap tech, but there's so much fear around it that it'll be limited to who can get treatments using this tech. Considering that some people run CRISPR in their garage, it won't take long before gene therapy are in the wild for cheap.

By 2020 there will have a number of potential technologies that will get people excited. Nothing you can buy by 2020, but afterwards you'll certainly be able to. By 2030 gene therapy will be something everyone gets. Of the 7 types of damage we receive as we age, I could link you progress being made to most of them. The exception is cross linking proteins, unless someone knows something I don't?

Reverse aging is going to be a thing much sooner than most people think.

[Deleted]

We're not more special than any other species, but are the most advanced and have the most control over the environment and Earth.

That makes us special because no other species on this planet specializes in control over the environment as much as we do.

[Incredibale]

Abortions and the systematic destruction of the traditional family are good things mkay.

Don't be a misogynistic pig and suggest otherwise. What is the collapse of civilization compared to the feelings of strong independent women?

Nailed it.

All these social programs the left is so fond of are dependant on population numbers. Not enough taxpayers and you can't pay for them. So let's kill millions of future taxpayers and discourage procreation based on lies about sustainability.

It's insane how anti-human the left is. Why do they cry about racism and sexism when they're against their own species?

[Shalanoree]

Umm, you seem to have difficult with the whole "rate" concept.

Reduced birth rates doesn't been reduced population, it means slower growth of population, and if you keep reducing them, eventually zero growth.

FINALLY SOMEONE COMMENTS ON THE MATH OF IT ALL

Really, that's all these rates mean. It doesn't mean we have less children now, it just means we have more elderly not dying, therefore making the young population decrease in PERCENTAGE, not in numbers.

Even if we reach the point of "zero growth", our species is still healthy and not doomed to extinction. That would only mean that there's as much people being born than there are people dying, thus maintaining the overall population numbers.

Though let's be real, we could drop a couple of billions...other species would thank us.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I volunteer as tribute to help the Japanese.

[Deleted]

FINALLY SOMEONE COMMENTS ON THE MATH OF IT ALL

Really, that's all these rates mean. It doesn't mean we have less children now, it just means we have more elderly not dying, therefore making the young population decrease in PERCENTAGE, not in numbers.

Even if we reach the point of "zero growth", our species is still healthy and not doomed to extinction. That would only mean that there's as much people being born than there are people dying, thus maintaining the overall population numbers.

Though let's be real, we could drop a couple of billions...other species would thank us.

Really?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-birt...int-1434513662

The nation’s total fertility rate—a statistical measure of how many children each woman is likely to have over her lifetime—also rose slightly, to 1.862 children, from 1.858. That remains below the 2.1 children needed to keep the U.S. population stable, not counting immigration.

[Masark]

Really?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-birt...int-1434513662

The person I was replying to was going on about global birth rate, not the USA.

The USA, Canada, Europe, etc. are all well below replacement rate and would be shrinking is not for immigration.

[Macaquerie]

Really?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-birt...int-1434513662

Looks like we probably shouldn't be putting up a wall after all, eh?

[Deleted]

Looks like we probably shouldn't be putting up a wall after all, eh?

Of course we should. Illegal immigration is illegal for a reason. There's nothing wrong with legal immigration.

But the only lasting solution is to increase the birth rates of the native women. The thing is a lot of folks who come to the US from India, China etc to get shiny degrees, then go back to their home country.

http://www.soc.duke.edu/GlobalEngine...whyskilled.pdf



And when it comes to accepting uneducated immigrants, it becomes even more apparent that the only lasting solution if we wish to retain our living standards is to well, reproduce more.

[Deleted]

I don't think so. The Japanese government let in 8, yes 8, refugees out of a pool of 20,000 IIRC because those were the only ones who they thought would be able to add anything of value to Japanese society.

I am convinced their is a better solution to our problems than to open the flood gates.

Yes. Having more kids.

- - - Updated - - -

FINALLY SOMEONE COMMENTS ON THE MATH OF IT ALL

Really, that's all these rates mean. It doesn't mean we have less children now, it just means we have more elderly not dying, therefore making the young population decrease in PERCENTAGE, not in numbers.

Even if we reach the point of "zero growth", our species is still healthy and not doomed to extinction. That would only mean that there's as much people being born than there are people dying, thus maintaining the overall population numbers.

Though let's be real, we could drop a couple of billions...other species would thank us.

We have less children and more elderly not dying. It really is not that complicated. Unless you're looking at the numbers on a global scale but why would you do that?

[Macaquerie]

Of course we should. Illegal immigration is illegal for a reason. There's nothing wrong with legal immigration.

But the only lasting solution is to increase the birth rates of the native women. The thing is a lot of folks who come to the US from India to get shiny degrees, then go back to their home country.

Yeah that doesn't actually happen. Turns out that people coming from India kind of like living in America and want to stay if possible. And if you want to increase birth rates for native women, you have to give them financial incentives to have more kids, trying to shame them into staying barefoot and pregnant instead of pursuing careers isn't going to work.

[Deleted]

Yeah that doesn't actually happen. Turns out that people coming from India kind of like living in America and want to stay if possible. And if you want to increase birth rates for native women, you have to give them financial incentives to have more kids, trying to shame them into staying barefoot and pregnant instead of pursuing careers isn't going to work.

Yes, it does happen. And it's actually a big problem.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ng-the-u-dot-s

Agreed on having to give them more incentives, better daycare etc.

[The One Percent]

Don't worry, those refugees are breeding fast for you.

[Deleted]

Having more incentives helps. Yet that doesn't solve the issue. It really is simple. The better the quality of life in society, the less kids we have. Maybe we could approach it in a different way and say, start educating everyone NOW towards having larger families... but that is just an experiment and it's going to take decades to take effect.
Some countries simply dont have that time in order to avoid a demographic crisis.

[Macaquerie]

Having more incentives helps. Yet that doesn't solve the issue. It really is simple. The better the quality of life in society, the less kids we have. Maybe we could approach it in a different way and say, start educating everyone NOW towards having larger families... but that is just an experiment and it's going to take decades to take effect.
Some countries simply dont have that time in order to avoid a demographic crisis.

It's going to be hard to convince people of the necessity of having more kids unless you also provide the necessary support to help raise them. A couple is going to have a hard time raising even 3 or 4 kids to first world standards, especially if the mother quits her job to stay home and take care of them. Even if the government steps in to provide more tax breaks, it's unclear if that investment is going to pay off since more children also means more competition for jobs and more neglected kids falling by the wayside.

[Deleted]

It's going to be hard to convince people of the necessity of having more kids unless you also provide the necessary support to help raise them. A couple is going to have a hard time raising even 3 or 4 kids to first world standards, especially if the mother quits her job to stay home and take care of them. Even if the government steps in to provide more tax breaks, it's unclear if that investment is going to pay off since more children also means more competition for jobs and more neglected kids falling by the wayside.

you're absolutely right there. Having said that, it's not only an economic issue. An improved quality of life and better education simply leads to less kids. We can analyze that if you want. It's probably due to the fact that having kids its not easy regardless of your economic status.

[Macaquerie]

you're absolutely right there. Having said that, it's not only an economic issue. An improved quality of life and better education simply leads to less kids. We can analyze that if you want. It's probably due to the fact that having kids its not easy regardless of your economic status.

When it comes down to it, the bottom line is that people living in more developed areas use more resources, which to potential parents means that the cost of raising kids is much higher. In a third world country, kids generally start to pay for themselves, so to speak, relatively quickly because once they hit their teens they can start helping out on the farm or in the family business, but in the first world it's taking longer and longer to produce a functional adult that can contribute to society, because they need to go through a lot more education and training to be competitive in the job market.

[Deleted]

When it comes down to it, the bottom line is that people living in more developed areas use more resources, which to potential parents means that the cost of raising kids is much higher. In a third world country, kids generally start to pay for themselves, so to speak, relatively quickly because once they hit their teens they can start helping out on the farm or in the family business, but in the first world it's taking longer and longer to produce a functional adult that can contribute to society, because they need to go through a lot more education and training to be competitive in the job market.

I dont think it's an economic issue only. We just have less kids when richer. Simple as.

[Unionoob]

I dont think it's an economic issue only. We just have less kids when richer. Simple as.

It's both. I know few who can afford to have kids but they don't want to change there current lives and take additional responsibilities even though there finances would allow them easily to take care of that while at same time I know some who are no so lucky but they have children and they are taking care of them just fine. And currently growing western attitude "If you don't have enough money you shouldn't have children" doesn't help to situation either even though government help is more then enough to help less economically fortunate families.

[Deleted]

if you need a larger and larger population your culture is fucked no matter what

resources on the planet earth are limited
its not a issue of manpower because technology/machines do the work of many men

Not sure I get what you're saying about culture.
Resources on this planet are enough for waaaaay more humans. It's just that we misuse them.

- - - Updated - - -

It's both. I know few who can afford to have kids but they don't want to change there current lives and take additional responsibilities even though there finances would allow them easily to take care of that while at same time I know some who are no so lucky but they have children and they are taking care of them just fine. And currently growing western attitude "If you don't have enough money you shouldn't have children" doesn't help to situation either even though government help is more then enough to help less economically fortunate families.

Yup it's definitely both.