Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's time to start exposing the "Birth Rate Obsessors"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:13 AM
Original message
It's time to start exposing the "Birth Rate Obsessors"
This is a subject I've wanted to talk about for a long time because it really is at the bottom of a lot of conflicts!

WHY THE ELITES OBSESS ABOUT THE PEASANTS BIRTHRATES!

If you haven't noticed everybody from the US Chamber of Commerce to the Pentagon sit around all day wringing their hands about birthrates. Our birthrate in the US, Europe's birthrate, even China's birthrate. They think about it all the time. BUT we never talk about it even though it's the motive for a lot of political moves like, for instance, the Immigration Bill! Did you know that the US birthrate is below replacement level? GASP! That's WHY we need to import more people. American women just didn't produce enough human commodity units!

Now they would tell you that they HAVE to worry about this because of the global economy and COMPETITION. But that doesn't really explain why they worry about the birthrate in CHINA does it? I mean China is our main competitor so you would think a low Chinese birthrate would make them happy. NOT!

Which brings me to the "Pro-life" movement...IS IT POSSIBLE that it's nothing more than a US Chamber of Commerce funded FRAUD? I think that's very possible. Yes I do. I suspect Randall Terry isn't even a Christian at all. I think he's a "US Chamber of Commerce birthrate booster".

So what to you think the problem is that they fret about so much. What are they afraid of? I have a hunch. I think the top 1% of earners in this world sit around with calculators keeping track of how much labor capital they receive from each baby born on Earth thru out their lifetimes. You see, The Gawds of this world need LOTS of money to support their lifestyles and that's means LOTS of labor. "Money from sweat and your shit for free"...

If you watched the immigration discussion panel on C-span this morning you would have seen what I'm talking about. A representative from AEI was FRETTING about the "birthrate". THE PEASANTS NEED TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN! But he never said WHY! But we did get some info..

THE US POPULATION WILL GROW UNTIL IT HITS 450 MILLION PEOPLE!

I would like to know WHO decided this and who the fuck they think they are to be making these decisions without consulting the very people they what to spit out children. Another thing they've decided is...

THE WORLD'S POPULATION WILL GROW UNTIL THE YEAR 2050 THEN WILL DECLINE!

That information must have came from either the crystal ball hotline or a time travelers blog because I just don't know how else they would KNOW that!

So, what is the REAL reason the elites have NIGHTMARES over the peasants low birthrates. Well I have a theory that I got from the History Channel of all places. Remember that series they did on the Black Plaque? In that series there was a little reference to Italy (I think) and it talked about HOW GOOD the peasants had it after the plaque. So many people had died that it made it possible for the farmers to own their land and feed their children the food they had grown. The peasants were FAT AND HAPPY! But two miles away at the Castle the Royals had to EEK grow their own food and do all their own work! The elites were MISERABLE! Apparently they decided that was never going to happen to them again thus the answer to the birthrate OBSESSION!

Anyway that's my rant for the day. All I'm hoping for is an ADMISSION from the rich holy ones. Maybe some day they will tell the truth. because..

THE EARTH IS FINITE WITH LIMITED NATURAL RESOURCES!!! It's time for the rich to DO THEIR OWN FUCKING WORK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sub-replacement fertility...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate that is not high enough to replace an area's population. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is below approximately 2.1 children per woman's life time. 2.1 children per woman includes 2 children to replace the parents, with one-tenth of a child extra to make up for the different sex ratio at birth and early mortality prior to the end of their fertile life.<1> Because of higher mortality rates, replacement fertility rate for the least developed countries varies widely, ranging from 2.5 to 3.3. Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman.<2>

Replacement level fertility in terms of the net reproduction rate (NRR) is exactly one, because unlike the TFR, the NRR takes both mortality rates and sex ratios at birth into account.


Map of countries by fertility rate. Because the replacement-level fertility rate varies from country to country, this map does not indicate replacement status.Today about half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. All the nations of East Asia, with the exception of Mongolia, have below replacement rate fertility. Countries in Eastern Europe are in most cases quite dramatically below replacement fertility. Western Europe also is below replacement. Among other major Eurasian states, Turkey, Kazakhstan and most severely Russia have sub-replacement rates. In the Middle East, Iran, Tunisia, Algeria and Lebanon are below replacement. Canada and Australia are similar to Western Europe. The United States is nearly at replacement with 2.09 births per woman, but this is due to the high fertility rate among recent immigrant groups such as Hispanics; the fertlity rate for non-Hispanic whites being under 1.9 (ie below replacement level). Nonetheless all the above countries still have growing populations due to immigration and population momentum. The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, Taiwan, Ukraine and Lithuania. Only a few countries have severe enough or sustained sub-replacement fertility (combined with other population factors like immigration) to have population decline, such as Russia, Japan, and Ukraine.

Contents
1 Causes
2 Effects
3 Reversing the trend?
4 The American exception
5 The Israeli exception
6 References
7 See also
8 External links

Causes
There have been a number of explanations for the general decline in fertility rates in much of the world, and the true explanation is almost certainly a combination of different factors.

The increase of urbanization around the world is considered by some a central cause. In recent times, residents of urban areas tend to have fewer children than people in rural areas. The need for extra labour from children on farms does not apply to urban-dwellers. Cities tend to have higher property prices, making a large family more expensive, especially in those societies where each child is now expected to have his own bedroom, rather than sharing with siblings as was the case until recently. In Mediterranean countries where parents will be expected to buy a house for their daughter when she gets married, there is a powerful financial disincentive to having more than one daughter. Rural areas also tend to be more conservative with less contraception and abortion than urban areas.

Changes in contraception are also an important cause, and one that has seen dramatic changes in the last few generations. Abortion has been legalized in much of the world and contraception has become far more accepted.

The rise of feminism is also viewed as a crucial cause by many. Growing female participation in the work force has led to many women delaying or deciding against having children, or to not have as many. Relations between the sexes have become more competitive and less stable. A longer pursuit of education also delays marriages. Greater access to abortion and contraception, and greater proclivity of feminist-influenced women to use them, also can reduce rates.

Other social changes both separate and related to feminism also have played a role. Bearing children is regarded as less of a social duty than it once was in many societies. Women's social status increasingly correlates with their work or behaviour as consumers rather than from their role as mothers. Indeed having a large family is often socially deprecated, being associated with lower status groups. A number of governments such as those of China and Iran have launched programs to reduce fertility rates and curb population growth.

Another school of thought argues that all these factors are a natural outgrowth of a Malthusian attempt to restore a population balance that was upset earlier. The revolution in hygiene and medicine that caused death rates to plummet during the twentieth century did not see a corresponding fall in birth rates until a couple generations later. This period of low death rates and high birth rates thus caused human population to balloon at a rate never before seen in human history on such a wide scale. The Malthusians argue that modern low birth rates are a natural reaction to counteract this imbalance.

Another, perhaps simpler explanation, could be a reduction in the frequency of sex in populations with low birth rates. For example, according to a survey published by the Japanese Family Planning Association in March 2007, a record 39.7 per cent of Japanese citizens ages 16-49 had not had sex for more than a month. <1>. The decline of male sperm counts in industrialised countries over the past forty years is also often cited as a possible cause.


Effects
Sub-replacement fertility do not immediately translate into a population decline because of population momentum: recently high fertility rates produce a disproportionately young population, and younger populations have higher birth rates. This is why almost all nations with sub-replacement fertility still have a rapidly growing population, because a large fraction of their population are at the beginning of their child-bearing years. But if the fertility trend is sustained and not compensated by immigration, it results in population ageing and population decline. This is forecast for most of the countries of Europe and East Asia, where immigration is low.

Current estimates expect the world's total fertility rate to fall below replacement levels by 2050,<2> although population momentum will continue to increase global population for several generations beyond that. The promise of eventual population decline helps reduce concerns of overpopulation, but many believe the Earth's carrying capacity has already been exceeded and that even a stable population would not be sustainable.

Sub-replacement fertility can also change social relations in a society. Fewer children tends to mean each child gets more attention from the parent. Fewer children, combined with lower infant mortality has also made the death of children a far greater tragedy in the modern world than it was just fifty years ago. Having many families with only one or two children also reduces greatly the number of siblings, aunts and uncles.

Population aging poses an economic burden on societies, as the number of elderly retirees rises in relation to the number of young workers. This has been raised as a political issue in France, Germany, and the United States, where many people have advocated policy changes to encourage higher fertility rates.


Reversing the trend?
In recent years some European countries have seen gradually increasing fertility rates, most notably France: the total fertility rate of metropolitan France alone increased to 1.98 in 2006,<3> while the total fertility rate of metropolitan France and the overseas departments combined has reached 2.00 that same year.<4> Nevertheless even France remains below the 2.09 children/woman fertility rate of the USA. Other European governments, fearful of a future pensions crisis, have followed the French example in an attempt to encourage more women to have children. Measures include increasing tax allowances for working parents, improving child-care provision, reducing working hours/weekend working in female-dominated professions such as healthcare and a stricter enforcement of anti-discrimination measures to prevent professional womens' promotion prospects being hindered when they take time off work to care for children. The result has been a slight increase in the fertility rate in countries such as Britain and other northern European countries but the increase has nowhere been large enough to reach replacement level.

Attempts to increase the fertility rate among working (esp. professional) women bring difficult political dilemmas; how far to alter traditional working practices so that women who are juggling work and child-raising responsiblities are not disadvantaged in their careers compared with men (for example, by legislating for compulsory paternity leave, flexible working and/or limiting total weekly working hours for men as well as women) and above all the question of whether the problem of sub-replacement fertility is so serious that unmarried women should also now be encouraged to have more children.


The American exception
While almost all of the developed world, and many other nations, have seen plummeting fertility rates over the last twenty years, the United States' rates have remained stable and even slightly increased due to the high fertility rate among recent immigrant communities such as Hispanics. The fertility rate among non-Hispanic whites in the US is below 1.9, ie below replacement level.

A regional breakdown of the United States thus closely mirrors the distribution of Hispanic immigration. New England has a rate similar to most Western European countries and the South and border states have fertility rates considerably higher than replacement. States where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strong presence, most notably Utah, also have higher-than-replacement fertility rates, especially among the LDS population.


The Israeli exception
The United States is not the only western nation with a high fertility rate. Israel has a fertility rate of 2.84 children per woman (the highest in the developed world). This high FRT is due in part to the high fertility rates of the Arab citizens of Israel (4.2), and the extremely high rates of its Ultra-Orthrodox, Haredi Jewish citizens (over 8). The total fertility rate of Israel's Jewish residents is 2.7. The lowest fertility rate of any religious group in the country is among the Christian Arab citizens of Israel (1.71).


References
^ For example in the United Kingdom in 2001 304,635 boys were born as opposed to 289,999 girls, and some of these girls will not survive to the end of their child bearing years. In future, therefore, the girls born in this year will have to have more than two children each to replace the total population. For a full explanation see ‘Replacement Fertility, What has it been and What does it mean?’ (PDF)
^ Espenshade TJ, Guzman JC, and Westoff CF (2003). "The surprising global variation in replacement fertility". Population Research and Policy Review.
^ INSEE, Government of France. Table 8 - Total fertility rate and reproduction rate (per 100 women), metropolitan France. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
^ INSEE, Government of France. Table F8 - Total fertility rate and reproduction rate (per 100 women), France. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.

See also
Population decline

External links
List of countries by fertility - CIA World Factbook
World Factbook table of Total Fertility Rate ordered by country name
The "End of species" hypothesis Does demographic decline mark the end of humanity's life cycle? May ET civilizations follow the same path?
Four Surprises in Global Demography By Nicholas Eberstadt
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. This is a lot of blather to cover the real cause of declining birth rates
and that is the rise in the status of women. When a woman can look forward to being something besides a husband's possession whose only worth comes from how many sons it has produced, she tends to have fewer children.

Why do you think the right fights so hard against all the rights of women in this country? Why do they want to strip us of the ability to control our fertility and even the right to vote?

Trust me, they know it's key to keep half the human race oppressed and cranking out cannon fodder and worker bees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. I think your right. I suspect the pro-life movement is secretly funded by
Wall Street! It would be nice to prove that someday. But I still think it has to do with money too. There are millions of women who aren't having children because they can't afford too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Supply and Demand - We are a commodity to the Rich
If the poor can control their birthrates, then the demand for them could go up. In other words, when people control their reproductive organs, then we become just a bit too pricey for the people in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. EXACTLY! I think it's time they just admit that! Instead of LYING..
About the FAKE global economy competition or the FAKE 4.5% unemployment rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Economic Consequences of Declining Populations!
They keep trying to explain their FEAR on the welfare state. NICE TRY!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
Economic consequences
The effects of a declining population can be adverse for an economy which has borrowed extensively for repayment by younger generations; however, a smaller human population has a positive impact on the environment and biodiversity. Problems associated with declining population are not irreversible or as severe as overpopulation.

Economically declining populations can lead to deflation, which has a number of effects. For an agricultural economy the average standard of living, at least in terms of material possessions, will tend to rise as the amount of land and resources per person will be higher. But for many industrial economies, the opposite can be true as those economies often thrive on mortgaging the future by way of social welfare and retirement transfer payments. However, standard of living does not necessarily correlate with quality of life, which may very well increase as the population declines (especially if the area in question is somewhat overpopulated to begin with).

The period immediately after the Black Death, for instance, was one of great prosperity, as people had inheritances from many different family members. However that situation was not comparable, as it did not have a continually declining population, but rather a sudden shock, followed by population increase. Predictions of the economic effects from a slow and continuous population decline (i.e. due to low fertility rates) are mainly theoretical since such a phenomenon is a relatively new and unprecedented one.


A declining population due to demographics will also be accompanied by population ageing which can contribute problems for a society. The decade long economic malaise of Japan and Germany is often linked to these demographic problems. The worst case scenario is a situation where the population falls to too low a level to support a current social welfare economic system, which is more likely to occur with a rapid decline than with a slower one.

However, the economies of both Japan and Germany both went into recovery around the time their populations just began to decline (2005). In other words, both the total and per capita GDP in both countries grew more rapidly than before 2005. Russia's economy also began to grow rapidly in the past few years, even though its population has been shrinking since 1992-93 (the decline is now acccelerating). In addition, many Eastern European countries have been experiencing similar effects to Russia. Such renewed growth calls into question the conventional wisdom that economic growth requires population growth, or that economic growth is impossible during a population decline.

A declining population (regardless of the cause) can also create a labor shortage, which can have a number of positive as well as negative effects. While some labor-intensive sectors of the economy may fail if the shortage is severe enough, others may adequately compensate by increased outsourcing and/or automation. On the positive side, such a shortage increases the demand for labor, which can potentially result in a reduced unemployment rate as well as higher wages (or a reduced underemployment rate).

A smaller national population can also have geo-strategic effects, but the correlation between population and power is a tenuous one, especially in today's world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. You might notice that every single one of the so-called negative effects
of a declining population in this piece is directly tied to the centrally controlled fiat currency system that we are captive of.

The same system, and in fact the only mechanism, that keeps the ruling class in place.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
5. I see the declining fertility rates among some populations as a result
of a number of factors. In the Western (industrialized) world, fertility rates, IIRC, were declining in the 19th C. As our economy became more consumer-driven, having fewer children made sense. Also, many people started seeing the sense of "fewer and choicer," meaning having fewer children, but putting more time and money into raising them.

The people who fret over declining fertility rates are, looking only a bit more closely, fretting over white population replacement rates. In America, this has been a common plaint since the 19th C, when successive waves of immigrants came to America. These immigrants often tended to carry on the "rural" model of family-building, having large numbers of children even when they usually living in urban areas, where extra kids weren't needed for their labor. The successive waves of immigrants frightened those who believed that what they called "native Americans" (they meant American-born whites) weren't keeping up in the birthrate stakes.

Then there's always the cheap labor aspect--more people=cheaper labor.

These different points of view intersect with those who worry about birthrates. Sometimes it's easy to tell if it's racially-oriented or economically oriented.

Plus, when economies decline, and the future is uncertain, people tend to scale back on how many kids they have. IIRC, this happened during the Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. You're right. It's a really big subject. That's why I think it should get
talked about openly! They recently did a poll asking US women of birth giving age why they weren't having children. Number one answer. "I can't afford daycare".. Actually they did that same poll at abortion clinics and the number one answer was "I can't afford to have the child". It would be nice if they admitted GREED at the top has something to do with it. But I guess they would rather import people from poor countries than give anyone a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. The Black Death was a really big deal!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Death#Socio-economic_effects
Socio-economic effects

Monks, disfigured by the plague, being blessed by a priest. England, 1360–75.The governments of Europe had no apparent response to the crisis because no one knew its cause or how it spread. Most monarchs instituted measures that prohibited exports of foodstuffs, condemned black market speculators, set price controls on grain, and outlawed large-scale fishing. At best, they proved mostly unenforceable, and at worst they contributed to a continent-wide downward spiral. The hardest hit lands, like England, were unable to buy grain abroad: from France because of the prohibition, and from most of the rest of the grain producers because of crop failures from shortage of labour. Any grain that could be shipped was eventually taken by pirates or looters to be sold on the black market. Meanwhile, many of the largest countries, most notably England and Scotland, had been at war, using up much of their treasury and exacerbating inflation. In 1337, on the eve of the first wave of the Black Death, England and France went to war in what would become known as the Hundred Years' War, further depleting their treasuries, population, and infrastructure. Malnutrition, poverty, disease and hunger, coupled with war, growing inflation and other economic concerns made Europe in the mid-fourteenth century ripe for tragedy.

The plague did more than just devastate the medieval population; it caused a substantial change in economy and society in all areas of the world. Economic historians like Fernand Braudel have concluded that Black Death exacerbated a recession in the European economy that had been under way since the beginning of the century. As a consequence, social and economic change greatly accelerated during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The church's power was weakened, and in some cases, the social roles it had played were replaced by secular ones. Also the plague led to peasant uprisings in many parts of Europe, such as France (the Jacquerie rebellion), Italy (the Ciompi rebellion, which swept the city of Florence), and in England (the English Peasant Revolt).

Europe had been overpopulated before the plague, and a reduction of 30% to 50% of the population could have resulted in higher wages and more available land and food for peasants because of less competition for resources. However, for reasons that are still debated, population levels in fact continued to decline until around 1420 and did not begin to rise again until 1470, so the initial Black Death event on its own does not entirely provide a satisfactory explanation to this extended period of decline in prosperity. See Medieval demography for a more complete treatment of this issue and current theories on why improvements in living standards took longer to evolve.

The great population loss brought economic changes based on increased social mobility, as depopulation further eroded the peasants' already weakened obligations to remain on their traditional holdings. In Western Europe, the sudden scarcity of cheap labour provided an incentive for landlords to compete for peasants with wages and freedoms, an innovation that, some argue, represents the roots of capitalism, and the resulting social upheaval caused the Renaissance and even Reformation. In many ways the Black Death improved the situation of surviving peasants. In Western Europe, because of the shortage of labour they were in more demand and had more power, and because of the reduced population, there was more fertile land available; however, the benefits would not be fully realized until 1470, nearly 120 years later, when overall population levels finally began to rise again.

Social mobility as result of the Black Death has been postulated as most likely cause of the Great Vowel Shift, which is the principal reason why the spelling system in English today no longer reflects its pronunciation.

In Eastern Europe, by contrast, renewed stringency of laws tied the remaining peasant population more tightly to the land than ever before through serfdom. Sparsely populated Eastern Europe was less affected by the Black Death and so peasant revolts were less common in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, not occurring in the east until the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries. Since it is believed to have in part caused the social upheavals of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Western Europe, some see the Black Death as a factor in the Renaissance and even the Reformation in Western Europe. Therefore, historians have cited the smaller impact of the plague as a contributing factor in Eastern Europe's failure to experience either of these movements on a similar scale. Extrapolating from this, the Black Death may be seen as partly responsible for Eastern Europe's considerable lag in scientific and philosophical advances as well as in the move to liberalise government by restricting the power of the monarch and aristocracy. A common example is that England is seen to have effectively ended serfdom by 1550 while moving towards more representative government; meanwhile, Russia did not abolish serfdom until an autocratic tsar decreed so in 1861.

On top of all this, the plague's great population reduction brought cheaper land prices, more food for the average peasant, and a relatively large increase in per capita income among the peasantry, if not immediately, in the coming century. Since the plague left vast areas of farmland untended, they were made available for pasture and put more meat on the market; the consumption of meat and dairy products went up, as did the export of beef and butter from the Low Countries, Scandinavia and northern Germany. However, the upper class often attempted to stop these changes, initially in Western Europe, and more forcefully and successfully in Eastern Europe, by instituting sumptuary laws. These regulated what people (particularly of the peasant class) could wear, so that nobles could ensure that peasants did not begin to dress and act as a higher class member with their increased wealth. Another tactic was to fix prices and wages so that peasants could not demand more with increasing value. This was met with varying success depending on the amount of rebellion it inspired; such a law was one of the causes of the 1381 Peasants' Revolt in England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Death#Socio-economic_effects

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. Many social changes took place due in part to the Black Death
The already declining feudal system was brought to its knees. Merit began to challenge the social class system that had been in place for so long. All because the labor pool began to think that they too, not just the well born, may have rights.

Needless to say this righteously ticked off those who were well born and considered themselves the only ones entitled.

On a much smaller scale a reduction in birth rates today is also a threat to our own ruling class. I agree with you that they know this and they fear what could come from it.

However, in some small ways we're not unlike pre-plague Europe. There it was increasingly difficult for the peasants to produce enough to provide the lords with the income they wanted. This was due in part to an increase in population and being forced to cultivate land that was less than desirable for crops. These lords waged wars with each other to increase their wealth and overtake more fertile lands. All the while the conditions for the average peasant was becoming increasingly poor. Eventually, with or without the plague the feudal system would have fallen. However, the rapid reduction in population brought on by the plague did help expedite the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. Social Security won't work with a declining birthrate and low immigration
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. You could always make the benefits an entitlement
there is no rule that old age financial security must be financed by a ponzi scheme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. You still have to figure out a way to finance it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. there is no advantage to delaying the necessary transition
Stopping growth now would at least make transition to sustainable economy easier.

Solving the energy, agricultural and economic problems of 300 million people is arguable easier than that of 450-500+ million.


You do agree that growth cannot continue forever?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. If it had been put in a trust fund to collect interest it would have worked!
Al Gore's famous "Lockbox" speeches everybody made fun of come to mind!

My solution is to take the cap off SS and make the rich pay more and to raise the wages of the workers so they would pay more. Universal Healthcare would help. Free daycare would also help. Rent control and food stamps for the young would help! Young people are being destroyed by high food and housing costs! There are other answers but the growth nazis won't tolerate it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. But that never was done, so the point is moot
Edited on Fri Aug-31-07 11:28 AM by Freddie Stubbs
You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
10. I agree with what you are saying
Plus, of more immediate concern than future peasant-to-elite ratios, are the needs of the industries that produce baby and kid crap. Fewer children means fewer landfill-clogging disposable diapers, chemically formulated baby food, toys, clothes, Disney movies, etc. etc. I've heard that those companies covertly support anti-abortion groups and legislation. Don't know if it's true but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. The forced birthers always seem to have a lot of funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. What would the Chinese and Mattel do? Or Gerber which reminds me.
Of this article...

Lobby Tones Down Fed Breastfeeding Campaign

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083002198.html?hpid=topnews

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
11. Population
We're actually overpopulated the in the U.S., there aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one. As long as our population levels continue to increase, due to births of U.S. citizens & immigration, wages will continue to fall, helped onwards by both parties' commitment to offshoring and inshoring all American jobs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. That's a very important point. It's a matter of who you are..
If you're rich and live off the labor of others there's always a shortage of people. If you're poor or middleclass it's too damm crowded. Global warming is also a problem of too many people which is probably why the deniers are working against it so hard. Growth is killing us and they will have to admit that someday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
I can safely say I won't be contributing to the population. The birth police will have to look elsewhere. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
16. Don't forget the importance of racism
Pat Buchanan loses a lot of sleep over such things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. That could be why they put so many young black people in jail...
They can't breed in there. They can't vote either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
23. Your apparent misuse of "peasants"
makes this post confusing as all hell. Peasants typically have a high birthrate. Who are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. The workers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Okay. But you should be more accurate
about these kinds of terms if you are entering the population debate. Peasants--small-scale agriculturalists--are a major source of "overpopulation" as the world modernizes. Their reproductive practice, having as many children as physically possible, is an adaptation to an economy based on human physical labor and high death rates from famine and disease. When these people move up into industrial society their death rates decline because of medicine and better food supplies, the economic value of their physical labor deteriorates because of mechanization and mass production, but they continue to reproduce as if under the old conditions.

The anachronistic Biblical provisions against contraception, homosexuality, etc. are a vestige of peasant reproductive culture that we are still dealing with in America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Sorry! I should have put a sarcasm on it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
29. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC