Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › plunging birthrate
- This topic has 515 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 9, 2011 at 3:03 PM #703312June 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM #702119
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
Interestingly the US has bucked the trend of the other mature industrialized countries. Thankfully most the world’s population growth is in dramatic decline that started in the 60s, with some going negative. All studies indicate this trend will continue and is speeding up. Max population numbers continually get lower as time goes on and data comes it. The best estimates now suggest a peak near mid-century, probably under 9 billion, and long decline after that.
This trend still does nothing to address the issues associated with massive over consumption and unsustainable nature of the whole project spiraling towards a social train wreck. For some reason, pointing this out, makes me a freak.
Interestingly, we have pushed this behavioral trajectory on “emerging economies” putting them on a collision course with the west in resource competition. Well, unless, we are going to get another earth to support these trajectories, it won’t end well.[/quote]
Good post, Arraya. You’re no “freak.”
I think the reason there are a LOT of children in CA, in particular, is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.
I just finished a pet-sitting job in a house with wa-a-a-a-y too much stuff in it, making it difficult to take care of the pets. The couple was elderly and enjoyed going to garage sales and thrift stores on the weekends. They aren’t the only ones I know with MASSIVE amounts of stuff stacked up to the rafters. For the life of me, how can a household of 1-4 people use or use up all this stuff in their lifetimes?? Most people can’t even park one vehicle in their garage. This “over-consumption” phenomenon cuts through all socioeconomic groups. In the WWII group (like my pet owners), I believe it stems from not having enough during the great depression (so they don’t want to run of anything now).
I’m with you in that I believe in preserving what resources we have left and living as “green” (and austere) as possible!
June 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM #702217Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
Interestingly the US has bucked the trend of the other mature industrialized countries. Thankfully most the world’s population growth is in dramatic decline that started in the 60s, with some going negative. All studies indicate this trend will continue and is speeding up. Max population numbers continually get lower as time goes on and data comes it. The best estimates now suggest a peak near mid-century, probably under 9 billion, and long decline after that.
This trend still does nothing to address the issues associated with massive over consumption and unsustainable nature of the whole project spiraling towards a social train wreck. For some reason, pointing this out, makes me a freak.
Interestingly, we have pushed this behavioral trajectory on “emerging economies” putting them on a collision course with the west in resource competition. Well, unless, we are going to get another earth to support these trajectories, it won’t end well.[/quote]
Good post, Arraya. You’re no “freak.”
I think the reason there are a LOT of children in CA, in particular, is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.
I just finished a pet-sitting job in a house with wa-a-a-a-y too much stuff in it, making it difficult to take care of the pets. The couple was elderly and enjoyed going to garage sales and thrift stores on the weekends. They aren’t the only ones I know with MASSIVE amounts of stuff stacked up to the rafters. For the life of me, how can a household of 1-4 people use or use up all this stuff in their lifetimes?? Most people can’t even park one vehicle in their garage. This “over-consumption” phenomenon cuts through all socioeconomic groups. In the WWII group (like my pet owners), I believe it stems from not having enough during the great depression (so they don’t want to run of anything now).
I’m with you in that I believe in preserving what resources we have left and living as “green” (and austere) as possible!
June 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM #702808Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
Interestingly the US has bucked the trend of the other mature industrialized countries. Thankfully most the world’s population growth is in dramatic decline that started in the 60s, with some going negative. All studies indicate this trend will continue and is speeding up. Max population numbers continually get lower as time goes on and data comes it. The best estimates now suggest a peak near mid-century, probably under 9 billion, and long decline after that.
This trend still does nothing to address the issues associated with massive over consumption and unsustainable nature of the whole project spiraling towards a social train wreck. For some reason, pointing this out, makes me a freak.
Interestingly, we have pushed this behavioral trajectory on “emerging economies” putting them on a collision course with the west in resource competition. Well, unless, we are going to get another earth to support these trajectories, it won’t end well.[/quote]
Good post, Arraya. You’re no “freak.”
I think the reason there are a LOT of children in CA, in particular, is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.
I just finished a pet-sitting job in a house with wa-a-a-a-y too much stuff in it, making it difficult to take care of the pets. The couple was elderly and enjoyed going to garage sales and thrift stores on the weekends. They aren’t the only ones I know with MASSIVE amounts of stuff stacked up to the rafters. For the life of me, how can a household of 1-4 people use or use up all this stuff in their lifetimes?? Most people can’t even park one vehicle in their garage. This “over-consumption” phenomenon cuts through all socioeconomic groups. In the WWII group (like my pet owners), I believe it stems from not having enough during the great depression (so they don’t want to run of anything now).
I’m with you in that I believe in preserving what resources we have left and living as “green” (and austere) as possible!
June 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM #702957Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
Interestingly the US has bucked the trend of the other mature industrialized countries. Thankfully most the world’s population growth is in dramatic decline that started in the 60s, with some going negative. All studies indicate this trend will continue and is speeding up. Max population numbers continually get lower as time goes on and data comes it. The best estimates now suggest a peak near mid-century, probably under 9 billion, and long decline after that.
This trend still does nothing to address the issues associated with massive over consumption and unsustainable nature of the whole project spiraling towards a social train wreck. For some reason, pointing this out, makes me a freak.
Interestingly, we have pushed this behavioral trajectory on “emerging economies” putting them on a collision course with the west in resource competition. Well, unless, we are going to get another earth to support these trajectories, it won’t end well.[/quote]
Good post, Arraya. You’re no “freak.”
I think the reason there are a LOT of children in CA, in particular, is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.
I just finished a pet-sitting job in a house with wa-a-a-a-y too much stuff in it, making it difficult to take care of the pets. The couple was elderly and enjoyed going to garage sales and thrift stores on the weekends. They aren’t the only ones I know with MASSIVE amounts of stuff stacked up to the rafters. For the life of me, how can a household of 1-4 people use or use up all this stuff in their lifetimes?? Most people can’t even park one vehicle in their garage. This “over-consumption” phenomenon cuts through all socioeconomic groups. In the WWII group (like my pet owners), I believe it stems from not having enough during the great depression (so they don’t want to run of anything now).
I’m with you in that I believe in preserving what resources we have left and living as “green” (and austere) as possible!
June 9, 2011 at 3:05 PM #703317Participant[quote=CognitiveDissonance]When ever I see a headline about “plunging birthrates” it makes me happy. That’s because I look at things like carrying capacity and ecological footprint. Things like species extinction, loss of biodiversity, top soil erosion, access to clean water, energy depletion, deforestation and a list a mile and half long.
Interestingly the US has bucked the trend of the other mature industrialized countries. Thankfully most the world’s population growth is in dramatic decline that started in the 60s, with some going negative. All studies indicate this trend will continue and is speeding up. Max population numbers continually get lower as time goes on and data comes it. The best estimates now suggest a peak near mid-century, probably under 9 billion, and long decline after that.
This trend still does nothing to address the issues associated with massive over consumption and unsustainable nature of the whole project spiraling towards a social train wreck. For some reason, pointing this out, makes me a freak.
Interestingly, we have pushed this behavioral trajectory on “emerging economies” putting them on a collision course with the west in resource competition. Well, unless, we are going to get another earth to support these trajectories, it won’t end well.[/quote]
Good post, Arraya. You’re no “freak.”
I think the reason there are a LOT of children in CA, in particular, is due to immigration, both legal and illegal.
I just finished a pet-sitting job in a house with wa-a-a-a-y too much stuff in it, making it difficult to take care of the pets. The couple was elderly and enjoyed going to garage sales and thrift stores on the weekends. They aren’t the only ones I know with MASSIVE amounts of stuff stacked up to the rafters. For the life of me, how can a household of 1-4 people use or use up all this stuff in their lifetimes?? Most people can’t even park one vehicle in their garage. This “over-consumption” phenomenon cuts through all socioeconomic groups. In the WWII group (like my pet owners), I believe it stems from not having enough during the great depression (so they don’t want to run of anything now).
I’m with you in that I believe in preserving what resources we have left and living as “green” (and austere) as possible!
June 9, 2011 at 3:15 PM #702124Participant[quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).
June 9, 2011 at 3:15 PM #702222Participant[quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).
June 9, 2011 at 3:15 PM #702813Participant[quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).
June 9, 2011 at 3:15 PM #702962Participant[quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).
June 9, 2011 at 3:15 PM #703322Participant[quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).
June 9, 2011 at 3:18 PM #702129an
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).[/quote]
Do you consider Scripps Ranch, Mira Mesa, Rancho Penasquitos, Carlsbad, Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach, Rancho Bernardo, Poway, etc. exurbs?June 9, 2011 at 3:18 PM #702227Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).[/quote]
Do you consider Scripps Ranch, Mira Mesa, Rancho Penasquitos, Carlsbad, Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach, Rancho Bernardo, Poway, etc. exurbs?June 9, 2011 at 3:18 PM #702819Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).[/quote]
Do you consider Scripps Ranch, Mira Mesa, Rancho Penasquitos, Carlsbad, Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach, Rancho Bernardo, Poway, etc. exurbs?June 9, 2011 at 3:18 PM #702967Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).[/quote]
Do you consider Scripps Ranch, Mira Mesa, Rancho Penasquitos, Carlsbad, Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach, Rancho Bernardo, Poway, etc. exurbs? -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.