US births dip to 30 year low....

Oct 2012
2,227
432
NC
#1
U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level

The birthrate fell for nearly every group of women of reproductive age in the U.S. in 2017, reflecting a sharp drop that saw the fewest newborns since 1987, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There were 3,853,472 births in the U.S. in 2017 — "down 2 percent from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years," the CDC said. The general fertility rate sank to a record low of 60.2 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — a 3 percent drop from 2016, the CDC said in its tally of provisional data for the year. The results put the U.S. further away from a viable replacement rate – the standard for a generation being able to replicate its numbers.

"The rate has generally been below replacement since 1971," according to the report from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ar-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low



To me this is good news. I don't think we need to replace the existing numbers of humans, we need to reduce the number.

In the Conservative-Stewardship party their will be a tax for any child had over one per family. No more tax-credits for making hyper-consuming little humans.

I may have to work on my pitch a bit, but that about sums it up.

Any other thoughts?
 
Dec 2018
591
19
Tempe, AZ
#4
My great friend, if you and your countrymen have been working hard enough, there is no need for Trump to build the Great Wall of America. :)
If 't be true thee wouldst beest so kind as to pray pardon me what specifically thee cullionly as to w'rk at what jump, t wouldst beest greatly appreciat'd. :D
 
Jun 2013
854
33
Earth
#5
If 't be true thee wouldst beest so kind as to pray pardon me what specifically thee cullionly as to w'rk at what jump, t wouldst beest greatly appreciat'd. :D
My great friend, don't waste your time asking. Just spend every minute to work hard and work harder. :)
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
#6
U.S. Births Dip To 30-Year Low; Fertility Rate Sinks Further Below Replacement Level




https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ar-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low



To me this is good news. I don't think we need to replace the existing numbers of humans, we need to reduce the number.

In the Conservative-Stewardship party their will be a tax for any child had over one per family. No more tax-credits for making hyper-consuming little humans.

I may have to work on my pitch a bit, but that about sums it up.

Any other thoughts?
There is no population problem, you could fit everyone in Texas with the same population density as Manhattan. The problem is logistics. That said, just becuase we CAN support the population doesn't mean we have too and a smaller population should be encouraged. I wouldn't place a tax on people with kids as that would violate reproductive freedoms but I would advocate for removing the current tax CUT while also encouraging adoption.
 
Dec 2018
591
19
Tempe, AZ
#7
a smaller population should be encouraged.
STOPPING illegal border crossings are an EXCELLENT start!!! :D:D:D

Maybe even limiting legal immigration to those likely to actually CONTRIBUTE (i.e. have a needed skill) to American society, rather than be a mere LEECH would be a great idea too. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
2,227
432
NC
#10
There is no population problem, you could fit everyone in Texas with the same population density as Manhattan. The problem is logistics. That said, just becuase we CAN support the population doesn't mean we have too and a smaller population should be encouraged. I wouldn't place a tax on people with kids as that would violate reproductive freedoms but I would advocate for removing the current tax CUT while also encouraging adoption.
I'm less concerned about "space" to contain the population as I am about resources used up and squandered.
 
Oct 2012
2,227
432
NC
#13
We can support about a trillion people (assuming no offworld resources) in theory. It's a logistics issue as I said.
that may be "possible" but having as many people as we can support, is the wrong mentality. we need enough to do well enough without negatively impacting the environment.
you could cram 20 people in a small bathroom and have them all share the same toilet. but of course, that would not be optimal.
 
Oct 2012
2,227
432
NC
#14
https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-overpopulation-is-more-than-just-a-material-problem

Dr. Calhoun was a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). In his most famous experiment, four breeding pairs of mice were moved into a mouse utopia. There were unlimited supplies of food, water and bedding. The area was disease free, the temperature perfectly controlled, and the researchers even cleaned the place monthly. As close to heaven as a mouse could get. All that they lacked was infinite space. There was, however, room for 3,000 mice.

Mice, for those who are unaware, are actually quite social creatures in the right conditions. They take on group roles, mark out territories, and develop hierarchies if their environment allows. It is this behavior that Calhoun wished to affect, and study. He described the experiment in terms of four “eras”, summarized here.

Days 0-100: The era called “Strive”. During which the mice were getting used to the new world, territories were established.

Days 100-315: The “Exploit” period. The population doubled every 60 or so days. Normal social behavior was noted here, and the population took full advantage of its unlimited resources.

Days 315-600: The “Equilibrium” period. It was here that the social roles of mice began to break down. Mice born during this period found they lacked space to mark out territories in, and random acts of violence among the mice began to occur. Many males simply gave up on trying to find females. These males retreated into their bedding and rarely ventured out. Simply eating, sleeping, and grooming. Calhoun dubbed these narcissistic loners “The Beautiful Ones”. They also tended to be rather stupid.


Days 600-800: The “Die” phase. The population, which maxed-out at 2,200, began to decline. No surviving births took place after day 600, and the colony ultimately died out. Individuals removed from the colony and placed in similar units continued to demonstrate erratic behavior and also failed to reproduce. The mice were remarkably violent at this time, for little reason.
 
Jul 2009
5,816
446
Opa Locka
#15
that may be "possible" but having as many people as we can support, is the wrong mentality. we need enough to do well enough without negatively impacting the environment.
you could cram 20 people in a small bathroom and have them all share the same toilet. but of course, that would not be optimal.
I said as much myself. All I'm saying is that the problem isn't really overpopulation.
 
Oct 2012
2,227
432
NC
#17
turns out millenials are not interested in having babies. In this particular instance , I am happy they are as selfish and self-centered as they are. ;)


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-we-worry-about-millennials-not-having-babies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joseph...y-boomer-real-estate-retirement/#33ae059e2058

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention released new data showing that the birthrate has dropped to an all-time low in the United States. It seems that the Millennials just aren’t having kids, or at least they’re not having them yet. The only cohort of women showing an uptick in first time births are women over 35 years old. In fact, the rate of first time births for women between ages 40 and 44 years old doubled between 1990-2012. Observers have suggested a number of reasons why Millennials are proving slow to have children. Some point to economics. Although the recession has been over for nearly a decade, there may be a lasting economic insecurity that is causing young would-be parents to think twice before procreating. Others assert that student debt has delayed parenthood. Perhaps.

Given these pressures, pragmatic Millennials have simply concluded that raising children is too expensive. A recent New York Times article interviewed a 32-year-old woman who wants to wait until her career is further along before having kids. “Once I achieve a certain level of success,” she says, “then I’ll start thinking about a family.”
 
Oct 2012
2,227
432
NC
#20
We're the most charitable, free thinking and 2nd most entrepreneurial (Gen Z beats us here) generation. It's Boomers who are the greedy, selfish, self centered assholes.

hard to track some of those.

They are also doing worse with drugs (at least in terms of dying from them) than previous generations:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2015 and 2016 the overdose death rate for people between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-four rose by over ten percent. This age group represents the older-half of the millennial generation.

Basically, millennials are dying from drug abuse far more than previous generations in this age range have in the past. That’s how they are being affected. The CDC reported that 2016 saw thirty-five Americans between the ages of twenty-six and thirty-four dying from drug overdoses for every one-hundred-thousand individuals in this age group. That represents a ten percent increase from the 2015 death rate and a fifty percent increase from the 2014 death rate. Numbers for 2017 have not yet been fully recorded.
https://www.narcononojai.org/blog/m...hat-makes-the-problem-different-for-them.html
 

Similar Discussions