plunging birthrate

[briansd1]

[quote=Eugene] we can’t possibly expect to build 10,000 new detached houses every year in San Diego area, we simply don’t have room, not unless we annex Baja. (For perspective, 10,000 new detached houses are the equivalent of building one Otay Ranch/Eastlake every year for the foreseeable future. And 10,000 is what we need to add, given natural population growth.)
[/quote]

I believe that we can easily put 2 million more residents in San Diego city in the space that we have. We just need to build denser neighborhoods and build up.

For example, the Asian area on Convoy would be mid-rises and high-rises with shops down at the bottom — perhaps a better version of Little Tokyo or Koreatown in LA.

I’m confident that the City will find ways to expand the tax base. It’s necessary for survival, unless city employees are content to get small pay increases at the rate of inflation only. If the tax base shrinks, layoffs and paycuts will ensue.

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]
Population wise we should see fertility rates continue to drop in the west, probably at a quicker rate not, which is good from a long term species survival and societal health stand-point. Bad from a short-term economic standpoint.[/quote]

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! Yes I agree that would be BAD. Although, I have read about the reduction in male sperm count that has been going on for about 50 years, to which, they do not quite understand. At least, when I read about it in the 90s. But as far as I know, that has had only a negligible effect.

Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the “demographic transition” that is taking place. So, no, it’s no a biological deficiency, but a behavioral leveling off..

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! Yes I agree that would be BAD. Although, I have read about the reduction in male sperm count that has been going on for about 50 years, to which, they do not quite understand. At least, when I read about it in the 90s. But as far as I know, that has had only a negligible effect.

Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the “demographic transition” that is taking place. So, no, it’s no a biological deficiency, but a behavioral leveling off..

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! Yes I agree that would be BAD. Although, I have read about the reduction in male sperm count that has been going on for about 50 years, to which, they do not quite understand. At least, when I read about it in the 90s. But as far as I know, that has had only a negligible effect.

Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the “demographic transition” that is taking place. So, no, it’s no a biological deficiency, but a behavioral leveling off..

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! Yes I agree that would be BAD. Although, I have read about the reduction in male sperm count that has been going on for about 50 years, to which, they do not quite understand. At least, when I read about it in the 90s. But as far as I know, that has had only a negligible effect.

Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the “demographic transition” that is taking place. So, no, it’s no a biological deficiency, but a behavioral leveling off..

[Arraya]

[quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! Yes I agree that would be BAD. Although, I have read about the reduction in male sperm count that has been going on for about 50 years, to which, they do not quite understand. At least, when I read about it in the 90s. But as far as I know, that has had only a negligible effect.

Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth, education, and urbanization. Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the “demographic transition” that is taking place. So, no, it’s no a biological deficiency, but a behavioral leveling off..

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]

If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:

The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.

~~~~~

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]

If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:

The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.

~~~~~

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]

If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:

The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.

~~~~~

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance][quote=njtosd]
From an evolutionary biology standpoint, a drop in fertility has never been “good for long term species survival.” Survival and reproduction is good for survival. Any genetic trait that causes a reduction in fertility will eventually disappear from the gene pool, leaving behind the more fertile survivors.[/quote]

Fertility rate in terms of “demographics” means a choice. Not in a women’s ability to have children. So you are talking about biological ability verse human choice. Big Difference! [/quote]

If you like Wikipedia, it has a good definition of “fertility rate”:

The total fertility rate (TFR, sometimes also called the fertility rate, period total fertility rate (PTFR) or total period fertility rate (TPFR)) of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if (1) she were to experience the exact current age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) through her lifetime, and (2) she were to survive from birth through the end of her reproductive life.[1] It is obtained by summing the single-year age-specific rates at a given time.

~~~~~

It is a fact, independent of choice or ability. And why the quotes around the word demographics? I don’t think anyone else has used it . . . . .

[Author]

Posts