Could abortion be the problem here??

[Just a guy]

But still, there it is:

year - babies born - immigrants SCB
1998 -4k +10k
1999 -6k +14k
2000 -3k +24k
2001 -2k +28k
2002 +1k +31k
2003 +6k +28k
2004 +10k +25k

So, now nativitiy is higher, probably due to immigration.
One can suspect we're slowly being replaced by immigrants...

 

[Said1]

One can suspect we're slowly being replaced by immigrants...

Ya think?

Finding out how many births they account for per x total populaton will give you a better idea.

 

[Just a guy]

Ya think?

Finding out how many births they account for per x total populaton will give you a better idea.

yeah, you are right, but I can't... can't find the statistics for that.

But it's a good guess isn't it? I mean, immigrants in - nativity rise?

 

[Said1]

yeah, you are right, but I can't... can't find the statistics for that.

But it's a good guess isn't it? I mean, immigrants in - nativity rise?

Possibly, can you find out who accounts for most of the immigration?

If you want to see something even scarier, check the amount of arable land vs the total population. That will tell you if Sweden is overpopulated or not. Based on that formula, Canada is overpopulated.

I think the unemployment rate is factored in somewhere, but still - not a nice picture.

 

[Just a guy]

Well, Asylum seekers top 10 countries SCB

Serbia and Montenegro
Iraq
Russia
Azerbaijan
Somalia
Afghanistan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Iran
Bulgaria
Belarus

Overall immigration is dropping, and I have a feeling that we have had more immigrants from Balkan and former Soviet than anything else. Maybe one shouldn't speculate too much over it... without hard facts.


Land cover
Arable land 2,746,929 hectares, Share of total area 6.1% and a population of 9M - what does that say?

 

[Nuc]

The imbalance of population is caused by birth control of all kinds, not just abortion.

The logic of "Let's have less children to save the environment and conserve resources" is belied by the fact that for the most part, the cultures with low birth rates tend to be wasteful in other ways. No way does an American or European family with 1 kid have a smaller ecological footprint than a Mexican or Afghani family of 6.

 

[Said1]

The imbalance of population is caused by birth control of all kinds, not just abortion.

The logic of "Let's have less children to save the environment and conserve resources" is belied by the fact that for the most part, the cultures with low birth rates tend to be wasteful in other ways. No way does an American or European family with 1 kid have a smaller ecological footprint than a Mexican or Afghani family of 6.

But statistically, certain groups practice birth control more than others. The comparison is interesting when looking at different demographics within any given western country with high immigration and a declining birth rate.

China's known birth rate is 13 per 1000 total population (someone else do the math, too early for moi). Even if it does drop a percentile(s), it's still high.

Also, Mathus didn't factor in technology, so he wasn't totally off the wall, just missing a few details.

 

[Nuc]

But statistically, certain groups practice birth control more than others. The comparison is interesting when looking at different demographics within any given western country with high immigration and a declining birth rate.

Of course that's a result of cultural background. Maybe the Pope is right. Whether you want to call it God or Nature, we are messing with the balance of it by having some groups breed indiscriminately (Muslims, Hispanics) while others practice birth control.

And we are not saving the world by using birth control because the people with less kids use their extra money to buy and use wasteful things. Overpopulation is occuring anyway, just not so much in North America, Australia, Japan and Europe. We are only postponing the inevitable.

 

[Bonnie]

Harmagedden....No, I do not advocate we should all follow suit.
I do advocate we make people aware of the population problems that have been expected by ecologists and population biologists for decades. The planet is not infinite, not in size, neither in resources. So what’s it going to be? Breed children until you drop and have them fight over the remains, or take some responsibility for future generations, and choose to have 1 or two children instead of 30.
That is: sacrifice some liberty, to secure future generations.

Where are people having thirty children? Most families in the US average 2 children, and they limit their own families according to what they think is best for them, to suggest the government have a say in that goes beyond the pail. Natural death or other wise makes room for more people, it's tha nautural cycle of life. If you want to talk about managing our resources better then I agree there are many things we can do and are doing such as harnessing solar and wind energy, alternative types of fuel other than oil and coal, and science here in America is working on growing plants and food above ground so as to not deplete or over farm our soil, additionally we here use mostly farm raised fish and put limits on what we take from the ocean, unfortunately Europe does not, they are fishing the oceans dead, and killing many others in their kill nets. In the US for every tree that is cut down two or more are planted in it's place.


Russia's Demographic Decline Continues
by Timothy Heleniak

(June 2002) Recently released population estimates for Russia confirm the accelerating population decline that has been underway since the breakup of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. The Russian population stood at 144 million on January 1, 2002, down 4.3 million from its peak at the beginning of 1992. The pace of natural decrease (the surplus of deaths over births) and slowing migration appears to have intensified since 1998. In each of the last three years, the natural decrease of the population was over 900,000. In 2001, net immigration offset natural decrease by 8 percent, which meant the population fell by 820,000.

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Sec...tManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6506


Shortage of Girls in China Today:

Causes, Consequences, International Comparisons, and Solutions http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...+of+deaths+to+births&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

Births, Deaths, and Life Expectancy (Enduring)
Printable Version
The post Baby Boom trends (after 1964) of declining birth rates among women and deaths rates in the U.S. population will continue. Life expectancy has risen throughout the twentieth century and will continue to rise well into the twenty-first century. The population will age; the number of children and adults requiring more health care resources for longer periods of time will grow faster than the number of working adults needed to support such care, thus the dependency ratio (population less than 15 years old and 65 years and older divided by the population 15 to 64 years old) will continue to rise throughout the twenty-first century. The growing size of the U.S. population (currently more than 296 million) has reached the point where increasing in-migration (even by several millions annually) can slow but not reverse the rising trend in the dependency ratio.

Reviewer Comments

Evidence:
U.S. Census Bureau. Population Projections Branch. U.S. projections by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. [Data]. March 18, 2004. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed March 31, 2005.

The U.S. Census revised population projections suggest that over the next 50 years the number of children 14 years and younger and the number of aging adults 66 years and older (dependents) will continue to rise at a greater pace than the number of working adults between the ages of 15 and 65 years. The ratio of workers to 100 dependents is expected to drop and average of 1.4 workers per year between 2000 and 2050, going from a high of 212 workers per 100 dependents in 2007 to a low of 154 workers per 100 dependents in 2050. View Chart 1.

So here you have a situation in which due to declinging birth rates there are not enough people to work to help support those that are living well past 65.

The world's population 'boom' is not a result of an increase in birth rates, but rather a decrease in death rates. Today more infants and children are surviving into adulthood, while adults are living longer. Since the earth's resources are finite, population must stop growing somehow. Fortunately, birth rates are declining, because no one wants to increase death rates. However, population momentum (the 'boom' of young people who are beginning their child-bearing years), and the agonizing slowness with which birth rates are coming down, means the population is still increasing.

In the meantime, modern medicine is allowing people to live even longer - causing quite a dilemna: will humankind reach a point where having children is to be discouraged, even to the point of one child or no children families? What will the world be like with fewer and fewer children and more and more elderly people?

Some people do not realize that the earth's resources are finite. Or they believe that God or technology will take care of it. They propose a giant pyramid scheme to continue to produce young people who would take care of the old people - leaving the question of who is going to take care of the young people when they get old?

Many think that families should be large so that the children can take care of the parents in their old age. They who think so overlook the fact that people with fewer children are better off economically and are usually more able to save and invest for their retirement than if they had spent their money on raising more children.




Country TFR*
Spain 1.15
Latvia 1.16
Czech Republic 1.18
Bulgaria 1.24
Italy 1.24
*TFR=The total fertility rate: the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime if the birth rate of a particular year remained constant.

- from the Population Reference Bureau



Population Implosion, Graying of the Population

Europe's population is expected to decrease from 728 million now to 658 million by 2050, due to declining birth rates. June 8, 2000 ENN/AP

February 15, 2000 CNA Mainland China Facing Aging Population Problem. Due to its one-child policy, China's number of elderly people may triple from 130 million to 400 million over the next five years, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Currently one young person in mainland China supports an average of four elderly people.February 15, 2000 CNA

About 1780, about the time of Malthus' dire predicitons, families in Europe began cutting back the number of children they had, raising fewer children not because of disease or famine but because they chose to - perhaps because more children were more expensive to raise, and when city life and education became a factor, fewer children meant a better life for the family. But, like braking a speeding train, slowing population growth doesn't happen all at once. June 21, 2000 Christian Science Monitor

So what doe we do here? Start killing old people???

 

[Said1]

Of course that's a result of cultural background. Maybe the Pope is right. Whether you want to call it God or Nature, we are messing with the balance of it by having some groups breed indiscriminately (Muslims, Hispanics) while others practice birth control.

And we are not saving the world by using birth control because the people with less kids use their extra money to buy and use wasteful things. Overpopulation is occuring anyway, just not so much in North America, Australia, Japan and Europe. We are only postponing the inevitable.

Most of those countries are already over populated based on the location of population densities. The best land is usually located in the best climate suited for inhabitation. It gets eaten up by development. I'm only speaking about agriculture here, not mining and other land uses.