Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
9. Yes, but...
Mon May 21, 2012, 12:03 AM
May 2012

The overall desire to have children can go down within a society as things get either good or bad. The good part depends on having increasing amounts of resources (especially energy) so you don't need kids as farm slaves. The bad part depends on immiseration - decreasing resources and social cohesion - as happened in Russia as the Soviet Union crashed and burned.

Demographic transition works slowly and is very expensive in terms of resources used per birth avoided. Social crash is fast and cheap. In Russia the birth rate plunged by 50% in six years during the collapse. That's five times greater than the decline in industrialized nations over the same number of years.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no way to manage large-scale population change for planned outcomes. At least there's no way of doing that and maintaining the appearance of voluntary participation. My preference is simply to accept the situation, and watch it unfold - while acting as a witness to the demographic, ecological and cultural changes. If we allow things to unroll while always trying to understand What's Happening as clearly as possible, we have a greater chance of stumbling across a piece of knowledge that might prove useful.

I think hasty action based on insufficient information is a recipe for worsening the problem - as Dilworth points out that it always has been. My personal motto is "Don't just do something, sit there!" Think deeply before you act. Wait to see what new information comes up. Activists may take a dim view of this approach, but I'm convinced it will be healthier, safer, more certain and more virtuous in the end.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Religion dimbear May 2012 #1
Absolutely get the red out May 2012 #3
We need to find ways to raise consciousness of this issue. Real programs and ideas. Gregorian May 2012 #2
I didn't need an an anthropomorphic child. I had younger siblings. hunter May 2012 #20
I'd like to say religion but I know many young people who are not into religion but having kids. freshwest May 2012 #4
I grew up in an intelligent neighborhood. Almost none of my friends has children. Gregorian May 2012 #5
They're quite intelligent, and believe me, I've lived areas I wouldn't say that about. I don't know freshwest May 2012 #6
There are different kinds of intelligence. Gregorian May 2012 #8
I think there's something inherently optimistic in all life XemaSab May 2012 #7
Yes, but... GliderGuider May 2012 #9
Global fertility rate 2.46 / US 2.06 / Japan 1.21 / Libya 2.96 kristopher May 2012 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider May 2012 #11
Global population is rising linearly by 75 million people per year. GliderGuider May 2012 #12
That doesn't really help understand or solve the problem GG. kristopher May 2012 #15
We know the population is rising by 75 M/year. That's true too. GliderGuider May 2012 #17
If you'll notice the course described has nothing to do with what you're saying. kristopher May 2012 #18
You must have an allergy GliderGuider May 2012 #19
There was a thread on this topic a few weeks ago CrispyQ May 2012 #13
Why do people purposefully give the next 90+ years to their babies? stuntcat May 2012 #14
IMO we are into the beginning of the bottleneck. GliderGuider May 2012 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Population Is Popping: Wh...»Reply #9