population redux
22 Nov 2004 05:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouOkay, rather than extend that one page even longer (though you're welcome to reply there if I missed a point), I'm going to try again and see if I can get this clear in my head.
Found a study on China's birthrates which indicate that government control impacts birthrates only in the short term; the biggest impact on birthrates are what the authors called 'preference' - that is, things like women working outside the home (and thus choosing to do something else with their free time other than have children), higher education, better medical...basically, the more a country is industrialized, and the higher its economic position in terms of living quality, the lower the birthrate, on average.
The birthrate in Japan is dropping, and has been; China is trying to get a zero-rate point where births and deaths balance out. The theory is that eventually the US will reach this same point - low death rate, low birth rate - but I think this leaves out the issue of immigration and increasing population due to other means. But anyway.
So...if it's an industrialized nation, with pre- and post-conception birth control available (bwahaha, my mother always used to say, 'abortion should be legal to the age of twenty-one' but I digress) then it's likely that it would have stabilized with several elements: 1, low birth rate due to people marrying later and preferring to spend their free time/money on selves rather than children, 2, low death rate due to higher quality of medical care, and 3, a certain balance of production to consumption. The real issue in that scenario might be what Japan is facing (and the US, to some degree): the aging population is larger than the next population, which means things like Social Security (which require the current working generation's income to supplement the retired generation's money, for those of you not in the US) will suffer. Hell, in the US right now I already know when it's my time to collect Social Security that I'm pretty much screwed; the high percentage of elderly currently living will have eaten up all the funds by the time it rolls around to my retirement. This is part of CP's argument that reduced Social Security and reduced medicare/medicaid and benefits for the elderly are a (possibly non-intentional, but results remain the same) case of negligence with the eventual result/goal of reducing the elderly population. Bring it into balance with the low birth rate, that is.
Okay.
So. If a country has reached maximum capacity of technology-production/resource-production compared to population, and the birth rate is relatively low, with a substantially larger elderly population...well, I guess I could posit several outcomes/catastrophes that would shift everything.
1. A sudden biological disaster - natural or as the result of war - decimates the weakest members of the population. First to go would be babies and the elderly. So now the population is mostly adolescent to late 60's, with those having better health care holding up the best (whether from age or wealth). If the biological disaster only impacted people - I mean, an AIDs-like virus wouldn't destroy the corn crop - then there's plenty of resources but a need to get the birthrate up substantially.
2. Hm. If a biological disaster struck at the resources, and took out a fair bit of the raw materials, then the population would go through a bit of a jag. Starvation, mass hysteria, etc - that would be very much a short-term thing; people rioting in the streets, fighting over food, waiting long lines, etc. Once alternate resources were found and/or population decreased itself to a manageable degree, it'd balance out again, right?
So unless, somehow, in the course of say, twenty years, several things happened at once: large numbers of the population rendered infertile, resources smacked hard and don't rebound, then there might be the need to *regulate* the birth rate (not necessarily limit it) but at the same time definitely encourage those able to bear children to do so. Because a lower birth rate means as the current population ages, there's no one coming up behind to support them to any degree, so obviously you want some birth rate - but not too much, because the resources won't support it (if only temporarily).
Maybe that means that, in the decade or so after a major natural disaster - hey, Yellowstone wasn't supposed to blow its top for another 50,000 years, damn it! - then those who are fertile would be treated to a massive amount of pressure as baby-making machines... well, to the degree that fertiles exist in proportion to the neutrals population, and the required birth rate. If every fertile couple produced a child and this topped the temporarily limited birth rate...
Y'know, I'm not really sure a govt/society would put a cap on the birthrate if there was mass starvation due to lack of resources. Wouldn't that be treated as one of those things - who's going to have a baby when they can barely feed themselves, already? I mean, assuming there's a choice on the part of the parents. I'd think most potential parents would look at the world and say, "we'll wait until it's a bit better, thanks," and the birth rate would drop to ridiculously low levels? In that case, the government would be trying to *increase* the birthrate, pressuring and encouraging and offering benefits to those willing/able to have children. Hrm. Since regulation moves slower than societal changes, what if the resources did rebound, but that birthrate control was still in place?
Man, either way - baby-making machines or under strict regulation - I'd think people who have spouse and are both able to produce children - I'd bet they'd feel like they're under a frickin' microscope. And I could potentially see, if the neutrals are a majority, that the medicine wouldn't be spent on the age-old medical care for mother/father/baby (not much new there), but instead on increasing fertility or 'curing' neutrals, since the bulk of the economy and income might be from neutrals. I mean, let's be honest. If AIDs had struck 50% of the American population, and wiped out/damaged a significant number of the mainstream, middle-class workers, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we were a fsckload closer to a cure than we are currently. Who suffers from a situation - their status, their education, their production - determines a great deal who gets the attention. Like the old saying goes, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Heh.
I'm rambling.
Found a study on China's birthrates which indicate that government control impacts birthrates only in the short term; the biggest impact on birthrates are what the authors called 'preference' - that is, things like women working outside the home (and thus choosing to do something else with their free time other than have children), higher education, better medical...basically, the more a country is industrialized, and the higher its economic position in terms of living quality, the lower the birthrate, on average.
The birthrate in Japan is dropping, and has been; China is trying to get a zero-rate point where births and deaths balance out. The theory is that eventually the US will reach this same point - low death rate, low birth rate - but I think this leaves out the issue of immigration and increasing population due to other means. But anyway.
So...if it's an industrialized nation, with pre- and post-conception birth control available (bwahaha, my mother always used to say, 'abortion should be legal to the age of twenty-one' but I digress) then it's likely that it would have stabilized with several elements: 1, low birth rate due to people marrying later and preferring to spend their free time/money on selves rather than children, 2, low death rate due to higher quality of medical care, and 3, a certain balance of production to consumption. The real issue in that scenario might be what Japan is facing (and the US, to some degree): the aging population is larger than the next population, which means things like Social Security (which require the current working generation's income to supplement the retired generation's money, for those of you not in the US) will suffer. Hell, in the US right now I already know when it's my time to collect Social Security that I'm pretty much screwed; the high percentage of elderly currently living will have eaten up all the funds by the time it rolls around to my retirement. This is part of CP's argument that reduced Social Security and reduced medicare/medicaid and benefits for the elderly are a (possibly non-intentional, but results remain the same) case of negligence with the eventual result/goal of reducing the elderly population. Bring it into balance with the low birth rate, that is.
Okay.
So. If a country has reached maximum capacity of technology-production/resource-production compared to population, and the birth rate is relatively low, with a substantially larger elderly population...well, I guess I could posit several outcomes/catastrophes that would shift everything.
1. A sudden biological disaster - natural or as the result of war - decimates the weakest members of the population. First to go would be babies and the elderly. So now the population is mostly adolescent to late 60's, with those having better health care holding up the best (whether from age or wealth). If the biological disaster only impacted people - I mean, an AIDs-like virus wouldn't destroy the corn crop - then there's plenty of resources but a need to get the birthrate up substantially.
2. Hm. If a biological disaster struck at the resources, and took out a fair bit of the raw materials, then the population would go through a bit of a jag. Starvation, mass hysteria, etc - that would be very much a short-term thing; people rioting in the streets, fighting over food, waiting long lines, etc. Once alternate resources were found and/or population decreased itself to a manageable degree, it'd balance out again, right?
So unless, somehow, in the course of say, twenty years, several things happened at once: large numbers of the population rendered infertile, resources smacked hard and don't rebound, then there might be the need to *regulate* the birth rate (not necessarily limit it) but at the same time definitely encourage those able to bear children to do so. Because a lower birth rate means as the current population ages, there's no one coming up behind to support them to any degree, so obviously you want some birth rate - but not too much, because the resources won't support it (if only temporarily).
Maybe that means that, in the decade or so after a major natural disaster - hey, Yellowstone wasn't supposed to blow its top for another 50,000 years, damn it! - then those who are fertile would be treated to a massive amount of pressure as baby-making machines... well, to the degree that fertiles exist in proportion to the neutrals population, and the required birth rate. If every fertile couple produced a child and this topped the temporarily limited birth rate...
Y'know, I'm not really sure a govt/society would put a cap on the birthrate if there was mass starvation due to lack of resources. Wouldn't that be treated as one of those things - who's going to have a baby when they can barely feed themselves, already? I mean, assuming there's a choice on the part of the parents. I'd think most potential parents would look at the world and say, "we'll wait until it's a bit better, thanks," and the birth rate would drop to ridiculously low levels? In that case, the government would be trying to *increase* the birthrate, pressuring and encouraging and offering benefits to those willing/able to have children. Hrm. Since regulation moves slower than societal changes, what if the resources did rebound, but that birthrate control was still in place?
Man, either way - baby-making machines or under strict regulation - I'd think people who have spouse and are both able to produce children - I'd bet they'd feel like they're under a frickin' microscope. And I could potentially see, if the neutrals are a majority, that the medicine wouldn't be spent on the age-old medical care for mother/father/baby (not much new there), but instead on increasing fertility or 'curing' neutrals, since the bulk of the economy and income might be from neutrals. I mean, let's be honest. If AIDs had struck 50% of the American population, and wiped out/damaged a significant number of the mainstream, middle-class workers, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we were a fsckload closer to a cure than we are currently. Who suffers from a situation - their status, their education, their production - determines a great deal who gets the attention. Like the old saying goes, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Heh.
I'm rambling.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 22 Nov 2004 11:06 pm (UTC)I don't think so. People are amazingly stupid when it comes to things like this. The birth rate, I think, would stay almost constant...it's the infant/youth mortality rate that would skyrocket.
no subject
Date: 23 Nov 2004 12:33 am (UTC)