Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is bad news: One of the effects of economic development and education is that you reduce the population growth. Japan has a really bad case of this. If China and India keep growing then they will hit the same problem. This is a problem because most of the muslim world is growing by leaps and bounds. North Africa and Persia especially. In these countries you have slow to no growth, and tons of new young people with no job prospects. If we stop buying their oil the problem will become seriously acute. That is what I call fertile ground for more terrorists. The only solution to this problem is get governments in the Middle East that encourage growth. The Baathists, that used to be in power in Iraq and still are in power in Syria are Arab nationalist socialist parties. In other words socialist governments that prevent economic growth and consequently encourage population growth. Anti-western sentiment in the region led to anti-capitalsim. Our only hope is to have governments in the Middle east that embrace policies of economic growth.

Oh but wait - I forgot - we are not suppose to encourage governments in the middle east to let evil multi-nationals exploit them and we shouldn't be knocking out bad regimes. I guess we should just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Uh, I thought China already had very low population growth?

If it's all about poverty, why aren't we worried about sub-Saharan African terrorists?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
God didn't create pit bulls; we did. And I blame Noah for the skeeters -- he had no room for the unicorns, but lets them on? Sheesh.

I may not get most of the humour on the board because I have no sense for irony, but I am of the opinion that the above comment was the funniest bit in a long while.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I may not get most of the humour on the board because I have no sense for irony, but I am of the opinion that the above comment was the funniest bit in a long while.

Fenwick?

Not Bob is very down-home nice. It's a function of living in Podunkville and working exclusively on slip-n-fall cases from the local Piggly-Wiggly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, I thought China already had very low population growth?

If it's all about poverty, why aren't we worried about sub-Saharan African terrorists?

China has tried really hard with its one child policy, but they still have growth. Not as much as India but it is still there. But their economic growth is turning that around.

Unfortunately for Sub-Saharan africa the AIDS epidemic has solved their population problem. But that does not mean that we should not support pro economic growth governments their either. Lord knows they need the tax base.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is bad news: One of the effects of economic development and education is that you reduce the population growth.

While I won't debate that there may be some correlation, I'd suggest the correlation is much, much stronger (as suggested in the article posted by Gattigap), between declining population growth/birthrates and increasing social protections that guarantee you, e.g., a retirement umbrella.

It was hardwired into our brains over human history that we needed children to take care of us in our old age. That's the personal motivation.

The social motivation was to ensure you had young replacement soldiers, young replacement workers etc.

But the personal motivation would (as us right wing types would expect) win out in a heart beat.

Uncy Sam (or Hans or Serge) gonna change your bedpan for ya? Buh bye birthrate.

Atticus made a comment about the pyramid scheme aspect of it (from the societal angle) a few days ago on the FB. Its right on. Wait until there are 4 retirees in Germany for every person working. You'll see 20% of the German population applying for asylum in the U.S., Canada and South America. Guess which 20%? I'd argue that the social nets are likely to disappear before this happens, just on the threat that this will happen, but who really know?

Just like social security here, there is no way a 35 year old European should be counting on a bunch of little blondes changing their bedpans on the government dime in 40 years.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
While I won't debate that there may be some correlation, I'd suggest the correlation is much, much stronger (as suggested in the article posted by Gattigap), between declining population growth/birthrates and increasing social protections that guarantee you, e.g., a retirement umbrella.

That is absolutely correct. However, another factor is people in developed country have the disposable income to prepare for their retirement. And the more children they have the less money they have to put away for their retirment. Where in undeveloped country, they only way to insure a pleasant retirement is to have as many kids as possible.

So the whole growth pattern is tied to retirment, it is just in developed countries the strategy changes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is a problem because most of the muslim world's population is growing by leaps and bounds. North Africa and Persia especially. In these countries you have slow to no growth, and tons of new young people with no job prospects. If we stop buying their oil the problem will become seriously acute. That is what I call fertile ground for more terrorists. The only solution to this problem is get governments in the Middle East that encourage economic growth. The Baathists, that used to be in power in Iraq and still are in power in Syria are Arab nationalist socialist parties. In other words socialist governments that prevent economic growth and consequently encourage population growth. Anti-western sentiment in the region led to anti-capitalsim. Our only hope is to have governments in the Middle east that embrace policies of economic growth.

Yeah, I guess we'll really be fucked if we stop buying oil from Syria.

But seriously, folks. Is the population of the oil-rich Arab states actually growing? Or are they dependent on immigration? My understanding is that, in the smaller states at least (i.e., UAE, Bahrain, Oman) a large part of the population consists of immigrants -- but I don't know if that means that the indigenous population is not growing.

Oh but wait - I forgot - we are not suppose to encourage governments in the middle east to let evil multi-nationals exploit them and we shouldn't be knocking out bad regimes. I guess we should just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

No, we are not supposed to encourage dictatorships and torture. I can see how you might forget that, given that your president likes to make out with King Fahd.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is absolutely correct. However, another factor is people in developed country have the disposable income to prepare for their retirement. And the more children they have the less money they have to put away for their retirment. Where in undeveloped country, they only way to insure a pleasant retirement is to have as many kids as possible.

So the whole growth pattern is tied to retirment, it is just in developed countries the strategy changes.

Actually, the strongest tie is between low population growth and women's rights. Once women are able to work, and do other things besides produce babies, population growth tumbles.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Actually, the strongest tie is between low population growth and women's rights. Once women are able to work, and do other things besides produce babies, population growth tumbles.

So many, many correlations. But what is the causation . . . .

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Uncy Sam (or Hans or Serge) gonna change your bedpan for ya? Buh bye birthrate.

So why the Baby Boom? Social Security had been in place for decades -- and was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So many, many correlations. But what is the causation . . . .

So, you get my point?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, I guess we'll really be fucked if we stop buying oil from Syria.

But seriously, folks. Is the population of the oil-rich Arab states actually growing? Or are they dependent on immigration? My understanding is that, in the smaller states at least (i.e., UAE, Bahrain, Oman) a large part of the population consists of immigrants -- but I don't know if that means that the indigenous population is not growing.

That is why I said North Africa and Persia. Algeria, Morroco, Tunisia and Egypt are growing by leaps and bounds. So is Persia. The Oil rich countrys are growing a lot also, they just have so much money they have to import tons of labour. Because they have so much money they don't have the employment problem of North Africa.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So why the Baby Boom? Social Security had been in place for decades -- and was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now.

America has never really followed the rest of the world on this. Our birth rates are not as low as the rest of the developed world. However, I think that today we are slightly below the 2.1 parity point but our immigration keeps us on the positive side (reason 3345789 that closing of the border with Mexico would be a bad idea).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So why the Baby Boom? Social Security had been in place for decades -- and was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now.

SSA was passed in 1935, baby boom started 1946, and birthrates started declining after 1957.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So, you get my point?

If your point was, there are a huge number of factors, and this isn't a subject easily distilled into a couple paragraphs, then yes. But it wasn't at all clear to me that was your point.