Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-kidding-around dept.

Half a million fewer children? The coming COVID baby bust:

The COVID-19 episode will likely lead to a large, lasting baby bust. The pandemic has thrust the country into an economic recession. Economic reasoning and past evidence suggest that this will lead people to have fewer children. The decline in births could be on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 fewer births next year. We base this expectation on lessons drawn from economic studies of fertility behavior, along with data presented here from the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the 1918 Spanish Flu.

[...] When the public health crisis first took hold, some people playfully speculated that there would be a spike in births in nine months, as people were "stuck home" with their romantic partners. Such speculation is based on persistent myths about birth spikes occurring nine months after blizzards or major electricity blackouts. As it turns out, those stories tend not to hold up to statistical examination (Udry, 1970). But the COVID-19 crisis is amounting to much more than a temporary stay-at-home order. It is leading to tremendous economic loss, uncertainty, and insecurity. That is why birth rates will tumble.

[...] There is ample evidence that birth rates are, in fact, pro-cyclical. This is shown, for instance, in the work by Dettling and Kearney (2014) described above. Their analysis of birth rates in metropolitan areas finds that all else equal, a one percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.4 percent decrease in birth rates. Schaller (2016) analyzes the relationship between state-level unemployment rates and birth rates, and finds that a one percentage-point increase in state-year unemployment rates is associated with a 0.9 to 2.2 percent decrease in birth rates. Other evidence shows that women whose husbands lose their jobs at some point during their marriage ultimately have fewer children (Lindo, 2010). This suggests that transitory changes in economic conditions lead to changes in birth rates.

[...] What are the likely implications of the COVID-19 episode for fertility? The monthly unemployment rate jumped from 3.5 percent to 14.7 percent in April and to 13.3 percent in May. Note that the BLS also indicate that technical issues in collecting these data likely mean that the actual unemployment rates in those months were likely 5 and 3 percentage points higher, respectively. That would bring them to about 19.7 and 16.3 percent. Although it is difficult to forecast the 2020 annual unemployment rate, assuming a 7 to 10 percentage-point jump to 10.6 to 13.6 percent seems reasonable. Based on the findings presented above, this economic shock alone implies a 7 to 10 percent drop in births next year. With 3.8 million births occurring in 2019, that would amount to a decline of between 266,000 and 380,000 births in 2021.

On top of the economic impact, there will likely be a further decline in births as a direct result of the public health crisis and the uncertainty and anxiety it creates, and perhaps to some extent, social distancing. Our analysis of the Spanish Flu indicated a 15 percent decline in annual births in a pandemic that was not accompanied by a major recession. And this occurred during a period in which no modern contraception existed to easily regulated fertility.

Combining these two effects, we could see a drop of perhaps 300,000 to 500,000 births in the U.S. Additional reductions in births may be seen if the labor market remains weak beyond 2020. The circumstances in which we now find ourselves are likely to be long-lasting and will lead to a permanent loss of income for many people. We expect that many of these births will not just be delayed – but will never happen. There will be a COVID-19 baby bust. That will be yet another cost of this terrible episode.

Journal References:
1.) Melissa S . Kearney, Phillip B . Levine. Subsidized Contraception, Fertility, and Sexual Behavior, (DOI: rest.91.1.137)
2.) Melissa S. Kearney, Riley Wilson. Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom, Review of Economics and Statistics (DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_00739)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:41PM (33 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:41PM (#1083777)

    So lower birth rates are the result of more uncertainty in people's economic circumstances.
    Tell me how this meshes with the propaganda that advanced economies tend to have lower birth rates because somehow that's due to people wanting it and being happier than people in countries with backward economies...

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:21PM (18 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:21PM (#1083794) Journal

      A bit of perspective can be found at this messy URL: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate#:~:text=United%20States%20-%20Historical%20Fertility%20Rate%20Data%20,%20%20-1.100%25%20%2067%20more%20rows%20

      Scroll down the page, and see when was the last time the US had a "sustainable" birth rate, of about 2.1. (I don't remember the exact number, but it's real close to 2.1 births per female.) 2.0 and below means the population is declining.

      So, even if fertility goes up and down marginally, and that fluctuation correlates to economic factors, it doesn't change the fact that the US is in decline, and has been for over 40 years.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:46AM (17 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:46AM (#1083853)

        2.0 and below means the population is declining.

        Does it, now? And you explain the overall US population increase with immigration?

        the US is in decline, and has been for over 40 years.

        Baseline: 1980 U.S. population: 226,545,805

        Total number of U.S. Immigrants in 2015: 47 million, 14% of the population.

        US population 2015: 320,289,273 net rise from 1980: 93,743,468

        Where, pray tell, did the other 46 million new US residents come from, if not immigration or fertility?

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 04 2020, @02:06AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday December 04 2020, @02:06AM (#1083857) Homepage Journal

          WalMart. You can pick up a ten pack of new residents for around $75.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2020, @03:23AM (12 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @03:23AM (#1083882) Journal

          There's a bit of a trick that I think you are missing. Starting in 1972, white, black, and Native American's fertility declined. However, we were already being told that Latinos were the fastest growing demographic.

          a. We had our own already native Latino population.
          b. We had a massive surge of Latino immigrants.
          c. We saw a pretty massive increase in Latino citizens, through naturalization, and through anchor baby programs.

          Add that together, and now, today, you have a rather robust birth rate among Latino citizens today - while white, black, and Native Americans continue to decline.

          I don't make the mistake of Democrats, in that, I don't expect Latinos to be a monolithic bloc, politically, religously, or even ethnically. But - the end result is, Latinos are displacing white, black, and Native Americans. We have fewer babies, they have more babies.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @03:42AM (10 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:42AM (#1083896)

            We have fewer babies, they have more babies.

            So, it's an "Us vs Them" thing?

            "Us" having fewer abortions isn't a good answer for any of that.

            I watched Central Florida move from migrant workers hiding in the fields in the late 1990s to openly moving into the cities in the 2000s, there was quite the boom then and while it was easy to say "oh my how things have changed so much in such a short time," looking back not much really changed besides the fact that the latinos are more visible than they used to be. Drug problems, illiteracy problems, underemployment of white layabouts problems - they're all about the same today as they were back in the 1980s.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2020, @03:51AM (6 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @03:51AM (#1083903) Journal

              It always has been something of an "us vs them" thing. What do you think the whole anchor baby game was about? "They" found a loophole in our legal system, and took full advantage of it.

              Note that I don't blame Latinos for taking advantage. I blame the idiot Americans who "interpreted" the 14th amendment to allow it. The author of the 14th was very careful to exclude the children of illegal aliens from citizenship, but lib/progressives had thir own ideas.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:08AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:08AM (#1083909)

                Yeah, like defeat the Nazis. Of course we had to be attacked first, so I guess we'll see how many domestic attacks it takes before we purge the domestic Nazis.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:41PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:41PM (#1084134)

                  You're not going to purge shit, you stupid Bolshevik's bitch.

              • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:44AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:44AM (#1083957)

                Like goddamned Polacks, coming over here just to escape poverty and, well, Poland. And then they started dropping bambinos like there was no tomorrow! One of them, a few clicks down the road, was our own Anchor Baby, Runaway1956. Time to call the gig, and deport him back to his ancestral European (almost) homeland!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @02:48PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @02:48PM (#1084016)

                  Yes the US has a lot to answer for, not the least is its treatment of White Negroes of Europe. The ways in which the US fucked my country by letting it languish behind the Iron Curtain are huge. Add to it the nonsense that is EU and we have a present day disaster.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:00PM (#1084021)

                a loophole in our legal system, and took full advantage of it.

                One man's loophole is another man's intended result.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2020, @05:21PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @05:21PM (#1084077) Journal

                  Can't argue that.

                  Historically, the congress and senate have promised almost every year since 'Operation Wetback' to address immigration. And, historically, congress and the senate have kicked the can down the road.

                  I've made this statement in the past, I'll repeat it here:

                  Had congress ever bothered to pass legislation that codified a real immigration policy, it would actually be law. Some of us may like or dislike such a law, but it would be law. Quotas would have been set, and policies given for exceptions, policies for asylum, etc ad nauseum. There would be a working protocol for any and all to follow.

                  My PRIMARY complaint regarding immigration is, we have few laws and few clear policies, and we are generally unwilling to enforce those laws and policies that exist. That leaves our borders wide open for anyone who cares to walk across. We can't reject known criminals, because we don't know who walks across the border. We can't document those people, so we have no idea who is desirable, and who is not. As a rule, documentation only exists when that outsider wishes to conform with documentation laws, OR, that individual runs afoul of the law.

                  However much I might like or dislike any particular law or policy, the law should be observed and enforced all around.

                  No matter how liberal or conservative our immigration policy, I can't understand any position that approves of undocumented people just wandering in, and doing as they wish, with a total disregard for the rule of law.

                  We don't even know how many immigrants have entered the country in the past 50 years. Since we don't know how many have entered, we can't possibly know how many have left, how many have stayed, how many live legal lives, how many are full time criminals. We can't possibly address human trafikking effectively, because we can't know who came willingly, or who came under threat of - whatever.

                  The most liberal minded, progressive person in America should agree with me that every immigrant should be documented, screened for health, screened for criminal background, and questioned about why he/she even WANTS to be here.

                  Liberals are all for the census - why wouldn't those same liberals want to carefully document every person who crosses the border?

                  Congress has failed us. Each and every congress for the past fifty years has failed to address immigration, they have failed to reform immigration into any sensible set of laws and policies.

                  Being a conservative minded person, I want to limit immigration, of course. More importantly, I want to see that immigration is handled in a lawful manner.

                  Immigration in the US sucks ass all around, I think that almost all of us can agree on that.

            • (Score: 1, Troll) by crafoo on Friday December 04 2020, @03:16PM (2 children)

              by crafoo (6639) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:16PM (#1084028)

              "So, it's an "Us vs Them" thing?"

              That depends entirely what you believe a country is and if you share Values and Culture with the illegal invading latinos or not.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @03:53PM (1 child)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:53PM (#1084040)

                the illegal invading latinos or not.

                Growing up, I wanted to own/operate an orange grove.

                After growing up, as I looked into the proposition of actually owning/operating an orange grove I came to the realization that: in order to make the operation financially feasible (even slightly profitable, rather than a hobby/money loser) it would have to be approached at scale: 10+ (preferably 100+) productive acres, financing, insurance, etc. and to make all that float a key component of the entire system was harvesting labor. Without using "illegal" harvesting labor, no citrus groves in Central Florida in the 1990s would have been even break-even profitable. This was due to competition among grove owner/operators which drove the margins down until "illegal" harvesters were a required component of any profitable operation, even break-even.

                you believe a country is and if you share Values and Culture

                It's not a choice. The grove owners and operators, most of them 6th generation and later 'Muricans, all of them considerably wealthy, have dictated the necessity: anyone who grows citrus for profit at any kind of scale requiring hired harvest labor must support the presence of illegal migrant farm laborers in their groves.

                Furthermore: the State (at the urging of the citrus industry) has repeatedly taken actions to wipe out "backyard citrus" further ensuring that the only significant citrus grown in Florida is grown in large scale commercial operations, or by those who "swim upstream" and spend far more growing their own citrus than it can be purchased for at retail.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:48PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:48PM (#1084136)

                  Whites should kill every White company owner who hires non-whites, after one warning. Kill any politician that tries to allow non-White competition in.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:42AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:42AM (#1083956)

            Racist motherfucking Runaway asshole! Get back in yer hole, you idiot! No one is fooled by your fake statistics. We are going to vote to give Arkansas back to Mexico, but not all that confident they would accept it.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Friday December 04 2020, @04:41AM

          by Socrastotle (13446) on Friday December 04 2020, @04:41AM (#1083921) Journal

          The overall population has a temporary lag behind fertility, due to life expectancy. But he is correct that anything below 2.0 results in a declining population. Imagine we have a group with a fertility of 1 that has their babies when they're 20, and dies when they're 50. And we start with a population of 100:

          ----

          (100) Year 0: 100x newborn
          (100) Year 10: 100x 10
          (150) Year 20: 50x newborn, 100x 20
          (150) Year 30: 50x 10, 100x 30
          (175) Year 40: 25x newborn, 50x 20, 100x 40
          (75) Year 50: 25x 10, 50x 30o, RIP 100
          (75) Year 60: 12x newborn 25x 20, 50x 40
          (37) Year 70: 12x 10, 25x 30, RIP 50

          ----

          You see a seemingly increasing population until the first generation starts to hit their life expectancy, at which point you see the "real" result. The US fertility rate only dropped below 2 in 1973 which was "only" 47 years ago. And so, relative to the above table and assuming a life expectancy of around 80, we're at about the 47/80 * 50 = 30 year mark on the above table which means we're still seeing relatively large increases in population. The rapid and *real* (as opposed to relative) falloff of 'native' population will go into overdrive starting in about 30 years.

          So in other words, you need to look at fertility in times of a single life expectancy. It's why fertility changes are a sort of hidden issue. They take a complete life-cycle to really show their impact, and we naturally tend to view life in terms far shorter than a life-cycle since that is, by definition, the point at which you're expected to have already died.

        • (Score: 2) by cykros on Saturday December 05 2020, @06:09AM (1 child)

          by cykros (989) on Saturday December 05 2020, @06:09AM (#1084298)

          Heightened life expectancy. Fewer people today smoke 4 packs a day, drink 3 martinis at lunch, and/or work in coal mines than in 1980, among other things. This could be verified by looking at median age in 1980 and 2015, but it's 1 am and I can't be arsed.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 05 2020, @02:22PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 05 2020, @02:22PM (#1084344)

            And we've hit the end of the life expectancy expansion? I know the great U.S. of A. is plateaued at the moment, and we're fucking the majority of the population's access to proper healthcare, but how long do you think the U.S. is going to keep that up?

            Besides, the U.S. is less than 5% of global population, and you can hardly expect the other 95% to mimic our behavior closely enough to make these razor thin distinctions between population expansion and contraction. Global population continues to expand, grinding poverty is hardly disappearing and if it does, it too will face a huge life expectancy expansion - far greater than what has happened in the U.S. post 1972.

            Boomers are starting to die, and that will put some downward pressure on population but not much, boomers had plenty of children and boomers' children weren't as hard drinking, smoking, work yourself to death types as their parents.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:25PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:25PM (#1083811)

      Tell me how this meshes with the propaganda that advanced economies tend to have lower birth rates

      Easy: in existing "advanced economies", more women have the capability to choose not to have babies.

      I.e. it is a correlation, while causation is neither direct nor immediate.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @03:12AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @03:12AM (#1083874)

        Easy: in existing "advanced economies", more women have the capability to choose not to have babies.

        Easy: in existing "advanced economies", more women have the capability to enact revenge upon men.

        There, FTFY.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:46AM (#1083960)

          Coming for your balls, incel! Gunna cut them right off. You get to keep your worthless penis, however. Falanger!

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 04 2020, @11:03PM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday December 04 2020, @11:03PM (#1084187) Journal

          "Exact revenge upon men?" What kind of delusional incel persecution fantasy is this?

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by https on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:25AM

            by https (5248) on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:25AM (#1084230) Journal

            It's the standard type.

            --
            Offended and laughing about it.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:36AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:36AM (#1083930)

        The one thing I wonder, though, is whether women are consciously choosing such or being indoctrinated into such? What I mean is that we have not even reached the first era of people dying off childless. All the way until the 70s, the birth rate was > 2 and single households were relatively rare. How are people going to feel about their life decisions when their post-menopause, their family is mostly dead, friends have done as friends do over time, and they are ultimately left with nothing and nobody?

        Being a strong empowered women (or a man "going their own way", as well) sounds nice and empowering when you're young. But as these people age and find themselves alone, while others surround themselves with the families they've created, are they genuinely going to be happy with their life decisions? It's just such a weird society we've created where being a meaningless cog in a corporate machine is somehow some empowering behavior, while raising a family - literally the one and only thing that keeps humanity alive, is some quaint desire? Not exactly the makings of a healthy, sustainable, civilization.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:07PM

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @03:07PM (#1084025) Journal

          People get older. They die. News at 11.

          Given that men die younger, what's needed are more cougars to restore the balance. And more lesbian couples.

          Because who wants to spend their days changing the diapers of some old demented coot, and then spending them final years alone?

          It's simple math - men want younger women who will be able to look after them when they are older. So why shouldn't women be thinking the same? Looking for someone who won't be a burden, then croak and leave them alone? Because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And men with Alzheimer's are a physical danger to their caregivers, or others in old age homes. They've repeatedly physically assaulted or even killed other residents and not been charged because they are not competent.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:58PM (#1084069)

          All the way until the 70s, the birth rate was > 2 and single households were relatively rare.

          And then came the 80s, technical progress got squashed, things that were steadily improving before, stagnated and then started degrading. The murkier the future, the riskier was the gamble of having a child; when one too many means irreversible poverty in perpetuity, anyone with any sense will err on the side of caution.

          Those who would have 3 children on expectation of growing prosperity, limited themselves to 2 on observation of it stagnating; to 1 noticing it falling; to 0 seeing politicians extra busy creating a catastrophe.

          Children are about future; future is about hope. Creating hopelessness, for whatever political reason, results in less children. Easy.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:51PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @07:51PM (#1084137)

          It's pretty goddamn clear that every White person is being brainwashed to self-destruct the race from birth by the Jews and their White race traitor minions.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:11PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:11PM (#1084190)

            We're all human you bigoted fool.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @10:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @10:33PM (#1085324)

          The one thing I wonder, though, is whether women are consciously choosing such or being indoctrinated into such? What I mean is that we have not even reached the first era of people dying off childless. All the way until the 70s, the birth rate was > 2 and single households were relatively rare. How are people going to feel about their life decisions when their post-menopause, their family is mostly dead, friends have done as friends do over time, and they are ultimately left with nothing and nobody?

          There are massive amounts of regretful, miserable parents, and that includes old people in nursing homes. It is a myth that your children will necessarily be around to take care of you in old age; in fact, the opposite is commonly true.

          Having children you don't want just because there's a small chance they might hang out with you when you're old is incredibly selfish and a recipe for absolute misery. Being a parent is a 24/7 thing, and should only be done if you really want to do it.

          I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that having children would be absolutely miserable for people who don't want them. It's such a simple concept.

          Being a strong empowered women (or a man "going their own way", as well) sounds nice and empowering when you're young. But as these people age and find themselves alone, while others surround themselves with the families they've created, are they genuinely going to be happy with their life decisions?

          There's no guarantee you'll be alone if you don't have kids at all, and far from a guarantee that you won't be alone if you have kids. What brings one person meaning might bring another person abject misery.

          It's just such a weird society we've created where being a meaningless cog in a corporate machine is somehow some empowering behavior

          Having children is a good way to make yourself a "meaningless cog in a corporate machine." You have kids? Well, then you can't leave the job that you hate and pursue what you're actually interested in, because that's not financially feasible! If you have kids, corporations have you by the balls.

          So if you're against being a cog and want freedom, family life isn't for you.

          literally the one and only thing that keeps humanity alive

          Plenty of people are still having children. But there's nothing inherently bad about humanity ceasing to exist, if that's what people choose.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @03:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @03:04AM (#1083871)

      So lower birth rates are the result of more uncertainty in people's economic circumstances. [...]

      Nope. The stork fleets are dealing with maintenance issues and parts supply shortages.

    • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Friday December 04 2020, @04:09AM (1 child)

      by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Friday December 04 2020, @04:09AM (#1083910)

      propaganda

      I am not sure you understand what that word means? Are you suggesting that every first nation in the world is manipulating their birth statistics? Births are inversely correlated to economic success, this is a well documented fact.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:36PM (#1084356)

        Propaganda doesn't necessitate lying. It's just the active advocacy for a given position. The untoward implications of propaganda (which you're probably think of) are certainly part of the connotation (as opposed to denotation) but they are also what I was referring to here. In particular do capitalist societies genuinely want people turning into corporate cogs because it's good for society (or the people doing so)? Or might it be that the people that directly benefit from a larger labor force, in large part due to reduced wages for higher skill levels, are largely the exact same people running the widescale propaganda to try to turn being a corporate cog into some sort of an empowering and fulfilling life?

        In the off chance I misunderstood you and you're instead simply suggesting correlation = causation instead, see any of the countless counter-examples. E.g. - Israel = developed + high fertility, Thailand = "less" developed + low fertility. When many developed nations share similar cultural values, you'd expect to see the same effects from issues where the causation is driven by culture/propaganda.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:45PM (8 children)

    by looorg (578) on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:45PM (#1083778)

    One would think that people being locked up (or locked down) together had nothing, or many, better to do then to f*ck. That said I'm sure once the vaccine comes around there will be some giant freedom orgy as every person that has been locked down (or up) gets to run free again and go to bars. Time to make up for lost time and all that.

    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:02PM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:02PM (#1083787)

      Presumably they have access to birth control of some type.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:14PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:14PM (#1083805)

      gets to run free again and go to bars.

      I don't know how it works in your area, around here (Florida) anybody who wants to go to bars is in the bars, maskless, basically like nothing is happening. If anything, those so inclined are living it up with the reduced crowds on the roads and in the stores.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @12:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @12:47AM (#1083835)

        Is corn pop there? I heard hes not getting the vaccine.

        Hes a bad dude.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:34PM (2 children)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:34PM (#1083815) Journal
      It's call d HallS x. Being forced to spend too much time together under stressful conditions leads to "familiarity breeding contempt." So when they pass each other in the hallway, they look at each other and say "fuck you!" "Fuck you too."

      Throw in the people who can't easily cheat any more, and unemployment making people less confident in being able to pay the costs of raising children, and the projected decline is probably less than what we'll see.

      Daily routines that provided some "social relief" from too-long domestic contract, such as going to earth, or one partner working from home while also taking care of the kids while the other doesn't do their share is explosive.

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @12:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @12:25AM (#1083828)

        So when they pass each other in the hallway, they look at each other and say "fuck you!" "Fuck you too."

        That happened with my wife. Our baby is due this summer.

        If you don't want a baby, try "Go fuck yourself!" instead. It's unproductive.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Friday December 04 2020, @03:14AM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:14AM (#1083877)

        Daily routines that provided some "social relief" from too-long domestic contract, such as going to earth

        holy cow, what kind of commute do you have?

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @01:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @01:50AM (#1083854)

      You seem to think that governments have come up with one rule that everybody obeys (perhaps via The Science™). I live in a Democrat-run state, and I'm planning to go down to the bar, whose owner must be politically connected, in about an hour.

      Conversely, even if governments let us have our freedoms again, I wouldn't expect some sort of explosion of joy on that one day. Governments and people have a herd mentality, it will take a critical mass of doubt in the helpfulness of the restrictions to start them running out, then there's going to be tons of people still afraid of the Coof that won't be going out until they feel their fear is regarded by people they respect as ridiculous and overblown.

      As to demographics of my bar-mates here: They are on the older side, 50s and up. It seems to be suburban moms that are mostly susceptible to the fear mongering.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:48AM (#1083923)

      Hahaha, can confirm this happened in my case. Pretty sure I got more during the COVID lockdown than I have in the past ~4 years combined.

      I'd expect the issue they're not stating is that the COVID lockdowns will reduce pregnancies between people not living together. What percent of pregnancies come from these sorts as opposed to people living together in long term relationships? Given the decline in fertility, I'm expecting pregnancy *outside* of co-habitation may well make up a large percent of all pregnancies.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:46PM (89 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 03 2020, @09:46PM (#1083780)

    There is ample evidence that birth rates are, in fact, pro-cyclical. This is shown, for instance, in the work by Dettling and Kearney (2014) described above. Their analysis of birth rates in metropolitan areas finds that all else equal, a one percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.4 percent decrease in birth rates.

    So, how is it that prosperity will save the world from overpopulation with reduced birth rates?

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:05PM (55 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:05PM (#1083788) Journal

      Messy URL, enjoy it: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate#:~:text=United%20States%20-%20Historical%20Fertility%20Rate%20Data%20,%20%20-1.100%25%20%2067%20more%20rows%20

      Scroll down the page, you'll see that the US has not had a sustainable fertility rate since about 1972. I forget the exact number, but it's close to 2.1 that's "sustainable". These are the numbers used by immigration advocates to "justify" increasing immigration, and to justify amnesty for illegals.

      Bear in mind that fertility rates INCLUDE recent immigrants and illegal. That may help you to understand that white, black, and Native Americans are being displaced by immigrants. And, maybe help to understand why abortion is such a bad idea.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:22PM (40 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 03 2020, @10:22PM (#1083795)

        maybe help to understand why abortion is such a bad idea.

        Bad for who?

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:19PM (33 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:19PM (#1083807)

          It's bad for the baby, obviously. It's a violent death, done silently behind closed doors with the dying child unable to scream due to liquid in the lungs.

          In case you think it's a woman's rights thing and us men should have no say, I'll just point out that the women I know are all the strongest opponents. Maybe guys like a hope for avoiding child support. Personally, I like how abortion primarily kills the children most likely to become leftist voters. Anyway, I don't know a woman who supports it. Probably half the women I know would be happy to impose the death penalty for both the abortionist (the hit-man) and the customer. Rape is no exception. I know a woman who raised her rape baby, and every year she travels to Washington DC to march in protest against abortion. Other women that I know have settled for small local protests due to expense and, in one case, having a dozen kids to raise. They go out to a street corner or bridge a few times per year to hold signs and pray. Women love babies.

          So babies don't like abortion and women don't like abortion. I think it must have been imposed by the patriarchy.

          • (Score: 5, Touché) by Mykl on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:27PM (26 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:27PM (#1083812)

            I know you're a troll, but I can't resist.

            Probably half the women I know would be happy to impose the death penalty for both the abortionist (the hit-man) and the customer.

            I love this. "Life is so precious that we should kill people to protect it".

            Funny how many "pro-life" people also support the death penalty...

            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @12:20AM (22 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @12:20AM (#1083827)

              We make a distinction between innocent life and guilty life. We send cops to hunt bad people. We defend the nation in war.

              What did the unborn kid do? Sins of the father don't count.

              And yes, I really do know these women. If you don't know women like them, maybe you run in leftist circles, or maybe the women avoid the subject when around you. In the seriously leftist parts of the country, pro-baby women have to hide their true feelings to avoid discrimination and other hostility.

              Do you even know a midwife, a Catholic, or a woman who chose to raise a rape baby? Have you talked with any of them, or did you just assume that all women support abortion? You might get an earful.

              Every year there is a huge anti-abortion protest in DC called March for Life. It tends to be the biggest or second biggest protest, sometimes drawing 650,000 people, but the news media completely avoids all coverage. It's not a sausagefest at all. The crowd appears to be more female than not.

              • (Score: 4, Interesting) by helel on Friday December 04 2020, @01:18AM

                by helel (2949) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:18AM (#1083840)

                In my (admittedly limited) experience midwives tend to be very pro-choice. The one's I've met are deeply committed to the idea that a woman has the right to control her own body and that authoritarian lawmakers should fuck off.

                Remember, midwifery has been and in some states still is banned in the US. Any midwife either owes their legal status to a decades long fight for women's right to choose or is operating illegally because they live in an area that still tells women how they may and may not give birth.

              • (Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:33AM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:33AM (#1083848)

                We make a distinction between innocent life and guilty life.

                Ah, yes, guilty of not following the laws of the oppressors, ahem, ruling class.

                Dolphins and whales are guilty life? All the megafauna of the globe that have been driven extinct, and the precious remaining few that are rapidly headed there, they don't count, but an innocent h. sapiens must be preserved from the moment of conception?

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:37AM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:37AM (#1083850)

                Do you even know a midwife, a Catholic, or a woman who chose to raise a rape baby?

                I went to Catholic school for three years. There was a lot of theoretical discussion about rape babies, the ethics of post rape hygiene and how far might be too far to not anger God. In practice, the only Catholic teen pregnancies I know about ended in abortions - very quiet shameful abortions, but abortions nonetheless.

                There was the one mother I met at age 30 who had a 17 year old daughter, that wasn't rape either, but by age 25 she was advising her daughter to use any and all forms of birth control to avoid repeating her life.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 4, Touché) by Mykl on Friday December 04 2020, @02:35AM (16 children)

                by Mykl (1112) on Friday December 04 2020, @02:35AM (#1083863)

                We make a distinction between innocent life and guilty life

                Who are you to play God and decide who lives and dies? We are all guilty of something - what level of 'guilt' determines that it's OK to kill another human? Are you completely without sin that you can cast that stone? Interesting that you are also ignoring the possibility of redemption/salvation - a key tenet of Christianity (which is strongly correlated with pro-life).

                And what if you are wrong and the person is actually innocent? You've then killed an innocent life. How many innocent lives are worth killing to justify the killing of a guilty life? If you are truly pro-life then my guess is that you would not risk the death of _any_ innocent in order to kill the guilty.

                To be clear, a lot of pro-choice people are equally hypocritical. Being both pro-choice and anti-death-penalty can be viewed as being just as inconsistent.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:27AM (15 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:27AM (#1083928)

                  I think most people don't realize the sort of people you end up defending when rejecting the death penalty. So for instance the federal death penalty was just reinstated. Here [cnsnews.com] is a writeup on the first 3 set for execution now (who previously had been 'saved').

                  1: After a paternity test showed him as the father, a man was required to pay child support for his daughter. So he took temporary custody of her, took her on a trip with him (as a trucker), and proceeded to torture, sexually assault, and ultimately murder his own daughter.

                  2: Drug dealer who murdered at least 7 people including, in one instance, everybody in a household when one person was unable to pay for his crack.

                  3: Guy (and a couple of friends) invite 3 women over to his house. One of the women rejects his advances and want to leave. He offers to drive them home. Instead drives them to a secluded forest and murders them all.

                  Yeah I'm more than happy to cast that first stone. The death penalty is generally not applicable or invoked in the sort of cases where somebody could rightfully become rehabilitated - for instance a murder done in a fit of rage. It's generally reserved not only for people who take other's lives, but who do so in rather heinous ways or those who engage in mass homicide.

                  When I was younger I used to feel exactly as you. But I think at some point, I just realized some people are simply sick and need to be put down. There's always the risk of creeping dystopia where, as you mention, who gets to decide who gets put down? But in general, this is one of the very few, perhaps the only, power that governments have not completely bastardized. The one thing I would add is that if a prosecutor ever intentionally misleads or in any way restricts access to evidence or reasonable defense then they themselves ought also be able to be charged with premeditated murder and/or attempted murder. While I trivialize it here, to some degree, with my choice of words - the taking of a life is of course very serious, and death penalty cases should not be a competition to see who can win - but instead a concerted effort from both the defense and prosecution at reaching a just and fair outcome.

                  • (Score: 2) by helel on Friday December 04 2020, @02:34PM (14 children)

                    by helel (2949) on Friday December 04 2020, @02:34PM (#1084015)

                    Actually, when most people argue against the death penalty they are trying to protect the sort of people who are wrongly accused, who are executed despite being innocent. When the justice system screws up and it's only forced to acknowledge it's error years later it's a tragedy for someone who's lost a portion of their life behind bars but at least they can now be let go. Until the state can reinstate the lives of those it kills it cannot be trusted to kill at all.

                    Even in the case of the guilty tho, it really comes down to what you think the purpose of legal sanction should be. Is the goal of the court to provide revenge or is it to protect society? If you're in the former mindset then it's obvious that murder is the level of revenge you want for some transgressions. On the other hand if you think society should be kept safe than there's no difference to society between someone locked up and unable to do harm and someone dead and unable to do harm.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:20PM (10 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @04:20PM (#1084054)

                      What is the purpose of legal sanction? Can I choose door 3? Why do we punish crime and misbehaviors at all? The answer is simple: the social contract.

                      Our social contract entails that misdeeds have consequences. When you park illegally and are required to pay a fine - that's not "revenge" nor is it really keeping society safe except in some abstract notion. It's simply part of the social contract. Engage in a proscribed behavior, pay a price. As the deeds grow in severity so too does the price. But now what should be the price for something so heinous that we have nothing on Earth that can possibly offer justice in proportion to the offense? Free housing, food, entertainment, and healthcare until the day they die? The discomforts of prison are greatly overstated. There is no justice there.

                      I fully agree with you on the dangers of invalid prosecution and this is why, in my opinion, the death penalty should only be used in cases where the standard of guilt is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "beyond any doubt". Our current system is not ideal but is still held to a much higher standard than a regular conviction due to the requirement of automatic and mandatory appeals. A person effectively needs to be convicted multiple times in order to face the death penalty.

                      • (Score: 2) by helel on Friday December 04 2020, @05:09PM (7 children)

                        by helel (2949) on Friday December 04 2020, @05:09PM (#1084071)

                        Your door number three is just refusing to examine your own beliefs.

                        On a basic level number three is protecting society. If you park in front of a fire hydrant and it cannot be accessed quickly enough in an emergency there is real harm done. The fine is an incentive to keep people from doing that and thereby protect society from fire. Likewise for driving unsafely or failing to wash your hands before preparing food at a restaurant.

                        Now if you insist on enforcing a social contract that goes beyond protecting society, such as stoning adulterers to death, then it's just revenge. That person did something I don't like and I want them to suffer!

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:49PM (6 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:49PM (#1084368)

                          Ah but I think you gave an absolutely perfect counter example to your own hypothesis!

                          For instance you claim stoning for adultery is "revenge." Does a person going 70 in a 60, or engaging in adultery result in more "unsafe" outcomes in society? It's not even going to be close. And similarly, why do other nations punish adultery with stoning? It it "revenge"? No! It's because in Islam adultery is considered a hadd offense - zina in particular. These are considered some of the most grevious offenses in Islam and is an affront to God himself. And the religion dictates that stoning is the penalty, so the societies institute stoning as the penalty.

                          All the social contract says is essentially 'If you want to live here, you must abide these rules. If you don't want to do so, feel free to live elsewhere.'

                          • (Score: 2) by helel on Saturday December 05 2020, @05:18PM (5 children)

                            by helel (2949) on Saturday December 05 2020, @05:18PM (#1084379)

                            While death is not the only measure of harm, roughly 102 people die every day as a result of unsafe driving. We might attribute the occasional suicide or homicide to adultery but even then it's hard to imagine we're talking about more than a handful per day. I'm really curios how you come to the conclusion that adultery is more harmful that traffic infractions?

                            As for Islamic law, just because somebody wrote it with the intent of revenge a long time ago doesn't change your stance if you support such a law now. If you support such a law you believe the law should be used to exact revenge, whether you're honest with yourself or not. If you didn't want revenge you would view such a law as unjust.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:13PM (4 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:13PM (#1084625)

                              You're not asking yourself the right question. That is:

                              1) Of all people who end driving above the speed limit how many will end up in a "socially unsafe" incident primarily (e.g. - not because of alcohol) because of this?
                              2) Of all people who engage in adultery, how many will end up in a "socially unsafe" incident primarily because of this?

                              When you look at the normalized incident rate, this is really not even going to be remotely close. Adultery is definitely going to be orders of magnitude more dangerous masked only by the fact that it's very rare relative to speeding.

                              And you can find countless laws where safety has nothing to do with it. For instance we live in a very corporate and commercialized society and so doing something like copying and sending intellectual property to other people is met with some very fierce and aggressively enforced punishments in spite of the fact that damages are, at worst, going to be a negligible commercial loss to a corporation. By contrast in other countries consequences for such tend to be nonexistent. It's not safety, it's not revenge. It's just a different social contract driven by cultural values.

                              • (Score: 2) by helel on Monday December 07 2020, @01:21AM (3 children)

                                by helel (2949) on Monday December 07 2020, @01:21AM (#1084723)

                                Well, about 1 in 4 people [psychcentral.com] engage in sexual activity outside their primary relationship. Meanwhile alcohol accounts for 29% of crash fatalities [iii.org]. Lets further assume that more-or-less everybody engages in speeding/unsafe driving.

                                Taking the alcohol out of the daily crash statistics would leave us with 72 deaths a day. Divide by 4 and adultery would need to cause 18 deaths a day to match unsafe driving, and that's without considering all the other, non fatal, harm unsafe driving causes. There are about 51 homicides a day in the US, so if 35% of them occur as a result of adultery than speeding and adultery might be equally harmful, purely on the death rate.

                                But that's total murders. We discounted alcohol from the driving statistics because it's a major factor in crashes and so, it turns out, is alcohol a major factor in murder, being attributed as a contributing factor in half of all cases. That brings our daily murder rate down to 26 and would require a whopping 70% of homicides to be the result of adultery!

                                35% of homicides being adultery related seems ... suspect. 70% seems impossibly high. And no matter which number you go with it's not the adultery itself that kills, it's somebody else's choices in response that do the killing, unlike losing control of your vehicle where it's the choice to speed that causes the crash.

                                Things like copyright penalties are an interesting case. They clearly exist purely because a few rich people wanted them to and as such are, I would argue, a more pure example of using legal penalties to exact revenge. If you download Frozen on LimeWire Bob Iger want you to lose your house.

                                Now Bob Iger would probably say that's not revenge, it's just stopping others. But let's tie this back to adultery. If you sleep with my partner and I respond by burning down your house it doesn't matter how many times I claim "It's not revenge, it's just stopping others", nobody will believe me. That kind of disproportionate repose is vengeance, period.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @04:40PM (2 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @04:40PM (#1085226)

                                  Below, I discuss your numbers. Since I expect there's a good chance you'll just glaze over it - I'm putting the more fun part, TEXT!, up top - though I wrote it afterwards. Anywho. Back to social contract stuff. Calling heavy penalties for copyright infringement "revenge" is not really reasonable. The act in no way whatsoever offends the corporations involved. And the loss itself is, at best, hypothetical. Many studies have shown that piracy in many fields *improves* the sales of the product due to word of mouth among other factors.

                                  But there is no grand rationale to law. It's not about revenge and it's certainly not about safety. It's just about providing a set of punishments for proscribed behaviors in a fashion reflective of the world view of the powers that be. The reason IP violations are punished so severely in the US is not because "a few rich people wanted them" but rather because the US government is controlled by corporations. And that, in turn, implies that the US itself is controlled by corporations. And so laws are going to be reflective of corporate values: copyright infringement = off with his head! Corporate crime (that benefits the corporation) = give us 5 minutes of your annual profit and we'll call it even.

                                  And this is how it's always been, and always will be. You can even go back to the very beginning of laws, thanks to Hammurabi [wikipedia.org]. Ham's code emphasizes that formalized law, since its very advent, has always been about simply enforcing the social contract of a region. So for instance what is more "unsafe", letting a slave free or blinding a man? One gets the death penalty, and one is where the now quite famous reference "eye for an eye" comes from.

                                  ---- Insert that stuff you will now skim ----

                                  Come on now, I'm only responding because you clearly put some effort into these numbers but don't you realize you're engaging in that latter part of lies, damned lies, and statistics? When extrapolating outward, use only know what you know to be absolutely true or your conclusion can be challenged on your assumptions alone. For instance, surveys where it's reasonable to expect high variance are not so good. But a survey in social psychology? That field has a ~25% replication success rate, which makes their data less than worthless - it actively undermines any effort at evaluating your hypothesis. Anywho, so on to what we do know:

                                    - 660 [fbi.gov] husbands/wives killed one or the other in 2011. Should get more recent data, but I'm lazy and so interested. The year is not cherry picked though.

                                    - 9,378 [nhtsa.gov] people were killed speeding in 2018.

                                    - 83% [gallup.com] of Americans drive, 64% everyday.

                                    - 50% [pewresearch.org] of Americans are married.

                                  Those should all be mostly incontrovertible numbers. But now we get into the bullshit zone, the magic number zone - where social psychology and filthy social scientists thrive. But instead of doing my best social science impression and juking every number to support my argument, I'm going to do the exact opposite. I'm going to pull a lot of magical numbers out of my ass here, but I'm going to bias them all in your favor of *your* argument! I'm going to be understating how many people speed and how often they speed, while also overstating how many and how often people cheat. So here we go:

                                    - 90% of husband/wife murders were in NO WAY caused by adultery. So those 660 deaths, now become 66.
                                    - 10% of couples engage in 10 acts of adultery each per year (your paper gave 6% per year, that 25% was a lifelong measurement)
                                    - The 19% of Americans who claim they drive frequently, but not everyday - they no longer exist.
                                    - The 64% of Americans who drive everyday, speed only for exactly one moment and only once every other day.

                                  OK! Bullshit presented, now let's roll the numbers! I'm going to be using 64 and 5 (5 coming from 10% of couples * 50% married) as base multiplier populations. I'm implicitly assuming a population of 100 because the actual number there doesn't matter since we're just comparing the RELATIVE ratios. I hope that makes sense!

                                  64 drivers * (365 * 0.5) incidents each yields 9,378 deaths.
                                  5 adulterers * (10) incidents each yields 66 deaths.

                                    - Speed death ratio = 0.8 deaths/incident
                                    - Adultery death ratio = 1.2 deaths/incident.

                                  That adultery is "only" 50% more dangerous than speeding is because I made all my magic numbers crazy in your favor. Also I simply accepted alcohol deaths as well because some rando gov site told me that speeding was the cause, rather than alcohol. And I'm sure they'd never mislead me. Some sarcasm there, if you can't tell.

                                  -------

                                  • (Score: 2) by helel on Tuesday December 08 2020, @06:04PM (1 child)

                                    by helel (2949) on Tuesday December 08 2020, @06:04PM (#1085247)

                                    Who do you think controls the major corporations, lizards? Anything a corporation bribes a politician for is something the rich people that own the corporation want. Attributing the action to a legal fiction is disingenuous. If they didn't want the law they'd spend that money on something else.

                                    And, as you point out, studies have again and again show that piracy is, at worst, a non-issue. So, what do you call it when somebody seeks wildly disproportionate harm in response to a slight they suffered? Vengeance? Revenge? Retribution? Cruelty?

                                    I am not claiming there is a "grand rational" to the law. Different parties want different things and all that influence mixed together makes a maddening mess. What I have been claiming from the beginning is that there are two ways to assign penalties under the law - Protection of the public or Revenge. Going back to the foundation, those who are against the death penalty believe the law should be written to protect the public. The fact that the death penalty exists to be debated at all is clear proof that many, perhaps most, people fall into the later camp and desire the law exact revenge (or retribution or vengeance or other synonym, take your pick).

                                    On the whole adultery thing ... I don't agree with you but I think I can see your argument better now. If we treat any vengeful killing in response to adultery as a result of the act then adultery is perhaps more dangerous, per incident, than most unsafe driving? It's much harder to get numbers on but I expect you'd see the trend continue with lessor injuries as well? Only one speeding in ten thousand results in a broken bone but every adultery leads to a broken heart?

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2020, @07:15AM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2020, @07:15AM (#1085452)

                                      I just realized that there's a really great way to describe how a social contract falls outside the dichotomy of revenge/safety that you're proposing! Assault. Should this behavior be proscribed? Absolutely. Are there exceptions where somebody is fully justified in engaging in assault? Absolutely. Should they still be required to face the consequences? Absolutely. Proscribing behaviors simply sets a consequence for behaviors that are deemed outside the values of society.

                                      And it's very arbitrary. This is the point I was making with adultery. We both got carried away in the details because it's fun to try to measure, but obviously nobody would ever suggest there are anything but negative overall consequences, sometimes very extreme, from the behavior. Yet it is in no way legally proscribed. The only reason is because we have a social contract that is little more than a reflection of our own cultural values. And our cultural values place a rather large weight on individual liberty.

                                      The reason I was describing corporations in a more broad way is because relationship with the government is quite nuanced. Bribery implies an outsider and an insider. But who's the outsider? By the time you hear the media speaking positively of a candidate in the US, he's already been vetted and approved by corporate interests. Disney owns ABC, Comcast owns NBC, AT&T owns CNN, etc. And if you don't hear the media speaking positively of somebody? Well it's pretty hard for that person to get elected. And this is just one link in the intertwining between government and corporations, though quite an important one. But in any case it's certainly not just 'a few rich people' enacting their will. That suggests if these few rich people suddenly disappeared, then everything would return to "normal", but I don't think that's the case.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:19PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:19PM (#1084192)

                        Our social contract entails that misdeeds have consequences.

                        Bzzt wrong.

                        In OUR "social contract", "consequences" are but means to an end, which is (advertised as) improving lives overall. For this goal, some actions get declared "misdeeds" and some disincentives get used to reduce their occurrence. Ideally, societal costs of those should be balanced, so that the efforts to (further) reduce misdeeds do not do more harm than the misdeeds themselves.

                        The people who make the means, "consequences", into an end in itself, usually want one thing and one thing only; a way to safely enjoy torment of fellow human beings. No sane person should be joining their ranks; the damage that the crazies do if unleashed, far outweighs any intended good from "being tough on crime".

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @05:11PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @05:11PM (#1085233)

                          There are many behaviors that completely damage society, and few would argue otherwise, but we accept them because our social contract dictates that such *ought* be accepted. And vice versa we ban many behaviors that likely are, in and of themselves, not only not damaging but perhaps even beneficial.

                          An example of the former would be social media. Screwing up society something fierce, but is ostensibly the embodiment of free expression which is a cornerstone of our social contract. Examples of the latter are endless. I'm not sure which is the most heinous so I'll simply pick one of the most absurd. In most places in America it is illegal to camp on your own land for more than two weeks. No I am not making that up.

                          So yes, the social contract and the punishments resultant from it (and our law) are in large part arbitrary. What rationale that does exist is largely subjective which is why a corporate crime that results in unimaginable losses almost never sees jailtime and generally gets a very gentle slap on the wrist, at worst. By contrast low level crime resulting in incomparably small societal losses can see major jail time, even in cases where the acts are not directly disruptive. Again, as above, copyright infringement is a good example.

                    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @04:28PM (2 children)

                      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @04:28PM (#1084057) Journal
                      Seems to me that a lifetime in jail is a worse punishment than a quick death. The death penalty lets people off too easily. If life in jail were so great, why do people try for parole?
                      --
                      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                      • (Score: 1) by Socrastotle on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:32PM (1 child)

                        by Socrastotle (13446) on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:32PM (#1084362) Journal

                        I used to tell myself the same thing as well, yet there's a simple question you can ask yourself to challenge your hypothesis.

                        Ask any lifer if they'd rather be sentenced to death. You'll get exactly 0 who will say yes.
                        Ask any death row inmate if they'd rather be sentenced to life. You'll get exactly 0 who will say no.

                        This is a testable hypothesis as well since there are pen pal programs for inmates. But I think obviously neither you or I will do that, but it's also equally obvious that it's wholly unnecessary because the answers are 100% predictable.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:40AM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:40AM (#1084506) Journal

                          I will be your black swan for this one: I would absolutely rather be put to death, and fast, than spend life in prison. The stipulation here is that the method is quick and doesn't cause undue suffering, so nitrogen asphyxiation. Death holds no terror for me.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:19PM (1 child)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @03:19PM (#1084029) Journal
                Another religious nutcase. "Sin" doesn't exist in nature. When hard times come, animals eat their young that wouldn't survive anyway so they can get through the lean times and ensure their own existence. That's not "sin." It's an innate survival strategy optimized by millions of years of survival of the fittest.

                Here it's the men who are against abortions, and the women who say "untested you have skin in the game by getting pregnant and carrying it to term, shut the fuck up."

                If men got pregnant, free abortion on demand would come with free beer and pizza.

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:27PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @11:27PM (#1084197)

                  Many animals (cats, dogs, sheep, deer, ...) reabsorb the fetuses (some of them, or all of them) if the conditions are unfavorable.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_resorption [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:34AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:34AM (#1083954)

              You missed the other thing lurking in here

              Probably half the women I know would be happy to impose the death penalty for both the abortionist (the hit-man) and the customer.

              The other lurking thing is that in 2016, 53% of white women thought abortion should be illegal, and in 2020 55% of white women think abortion should be illegal!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @09:18AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @09:18AM (#1083976)

                White women and Karens should be illegal. There, I said it. I say abort them before they get started.

              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:26PM

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @03:26PM (#1084032) Journal
                Bullshit statistics are bullshit statistics. Most people, including white women, agree that abortion in cases of rape, incest, non-viability, are okay. And the biggest percentage of religious folk who get abortion? Christians. Because it's easy to be a hypocrite and tell yourself that you're a special case. White Christian privilege strikes again.

                Fortunately we're heading towards a post-religious world in most civilized countries. The young'uns don't want the old farts religious fantasies.

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:19AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:19AM (#1083841)

            It's bad for the baby, obviously.

            Obviously. [youtube.com]

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:05AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:05AM (#1083944)

            Bad for the Catholic Priest, who wants women to have unwanted man-children, like Milo, that they can "mentor" in the ways of God. Abstinence makes the Church grow Fondlers, as I have heard it. Strange that Runaways is coming down on the side of the pedophiles, and traffickers in children, but then, 666 lost children on the southern border? Is that number a mistake? Stephen Miller is the AntiChrist! Told ya!!

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:30PM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @03:30PM (#1084034) Journal
              The Catholic priest will help procure an abortion if they're the father. Or just push them down the stairs.

              Q. What's black and white, black and white, black and white?
              A. A pregnant nun falling down the stairs.
              Q. What's black and white and laughs?
              A. The priest who pushed her.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:46PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:46PM (#1084087)

                Aren't you late for a church burning?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @02:54PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @02:54PM (#1084019)

            It's bad for the fetus, obviously.

            FTFY

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @10:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @10:42PM (#1085328)

            It's bad for the baby, obviously. It's a violent death, done silently behind closed doors with the dying child unable to scream due to liquid in the lungs.

            Or lungs that haven't even developed, given how early most abortions are done.

            In case you think it's a woman's rights thing and us men should have no say, I'll just point out that the women I know are all the strongest opponents.

            It's still a woman's rights issue, and those women you know are forced-birthers. It's 100% possible for women to be against women's rights.

            The question is whether or not there's a general human right to use someone else's organs to keep yourself alive. The answer, objectively, is no; there is no precedent for such a right, and there never has been. You could stab someone with a knife and cause them to lose massive amounts of blood, and you still couldn't be forced to give them blood (which is renewable), even though you directly and maliciously caused their situation. Therefore, since there is not a human right to use someone else's organs, women should always be able to terminate their pregnancies, for any reason.

            Forced-birth Nazis are hypocrites unless they support forced organ donation as well.

            Women love babies.

            Plenty of women do not. Or, even many of the ones who do, would still choose to get an abortion or allow it for others.

            So babies don't like abortion and women don't like abortion.

            Given that around 1/3 women get abortions in their lifetimes, it seems that many women are choosing abortion.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2020, @12:30AM (4 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @12:30AM (#1083831) Journal

          Bad for white and black Americans who allow their babies to be aborted. Good for Latin Americans, who are looking for new homes, and don't kill their babies.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:21AM (3 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:21AM (#1083843)

            You don't have to call out the wetbacks by name, you can just say Catholics.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2020, @03:27AM (2 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @03:27AM (#1083884) Journal

              Catholic doesn't make the point. We have some millions of Catholic whites and some blacks in this country who DO NOT subscribe to the church's position on birth control.

              Latinos tend to follow the church's edicts on birth control, or at least, a lot more than nth generation Euros do.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @03:45AM (1 child)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:45AM (#1083898)

                I live around the corner from a big Catholic church - several white families with 4+ kids in the neighborhood, and lots of "Choose Life" license plates - much more here than in the broader city.

                Sure, there are Catholics who will use rubbers, or even take the pill, just like there are Jews that eat bacon, Amish that use English air tires and buttons, etc. Still, by the percentages, Catholics are much heavier on the "Choose Life" bandwagon than most others.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:08AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:08AM (#1083946)

                  Sure, there are Catholics who will use rubbers,

                  Blasphemers!!!

                  "All I said was this piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!"

                  He said it again!!

                  Getting Catholics using rubbers stoned, that actually just undermines the whole point? Because then they will end up, um, . . . .

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:42PM (#1084084)

          Parent said:

          "Bad for who?"

          The answer: Bad for *whom*.

          You're welcome!

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:29PM (13 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:29PM (#1083814)

        Most data sources I have seen agree with these trends for US birth and death rates:

        https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate [macrotrends.net]

        https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate [macrotrends.net]

        Summary: 12 births and 8.88 deaths per 1000 people in 2020

        The arithmetic I took in school would say that we are still birthing more people than are dying in the U.S., by a wide margin - that seems like a net population growth to me. Even if we are sending our old people to retire in countries with better healthcare economics for the elderly, our immigration balance is a net inflow, with population growing from 213 million to 331 million today. Migrant population is around 47 million, falling far short of explaining the 118 million growth in overall population.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 04 2020, @03:47AM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @03:47AM (#1083901) Journal

          Migrant population is around 47 million, falling far short of explaining the 118 million growth in overall population.

          Not at all. First, you start from 1970. The native (third generation or earlier immigrants) population had much higher fertility back then. Second, you're not actually measuring the contribution of immigrants to the overall growth. For example, this link shows percentages [pewresearch.org] of immigrant and second generation immigrant populations from 1900 to 2018 (the cutoff for the study). From 2010 to 2018, the two populations increased from 24.0% share of the US population to 26.4% of the US population. Given that the US population grew from 309 million (April 2010) to 327 million (April 2018), that means that the immgrant/second generation immigrant population grew from 74 million to 86 million over the same timeframe. So out of 18 million growth, 12 million was due to immigrants or second generation immigrants.

          I wasn't able to get figures for third generation immigrants, but their number is supposed to be rather high due to the higher fertility of second generation immigrants. That sure looks to me like all of present US population growth can be explained by immigration as advertised.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:39PM (5 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:39PM (#1084001)

            So, all this: "immigration explains the US population growth" is predicated on the premise that 2nd generation immigrants aren't part of US population growth?

            Last I checked, US grants citizenship to anyone born in the US. Just because we're adding children from immigrants doesn't mean that the US isn't growing its own population. Many (most?) of those immigrants would not have had the children if they didn't believe in the prosperity of their new home.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 04 2020, @07:02PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @07:02PM (#1084117) Journal

              So, all this: "immigration explains the US population growth" is predicated on the premise that 2nd generation immigrants aren't part of US population growth?

              Consider what the label second generation means. You can't have second generation immigrants without first generation immigrants. So in other words, immigration does indeed explain population growth in the US, and is the difference between population growth and shrinking in the US today.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @07:18PM (3 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @07:18PM (#1084124)

                Consider what the label second generation means.

                So, as opposed to the founding fathers' vision of second generation being granted automatic citizenship, you'd like to move the goalposts?

                Consider that, except for the 3/64th of my ancestry that crossed the Bering Strait land bridge, most of all U.S. citizens are relatively recent immigrants, just a few generations removed.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:29AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:29AM (#1084279) Journal

                  So, as opposed to the founding fathers' vision of second generation being granted automatic citizenship, you'd like to move the goalposts?

                  Moving goalposts would not change the number of second generation immigrants or the number of kids they have. Nor would founding fathers' opinions on the matter. I guess this is as close to progress as we'll with you today.

                  Consider that, except for the 3/64th of my ancestry that crossed the Bering Strait land bridge, most of all U.S. citizens are relatively recent immigrants, just a few generations removed.

                  Because that is somehow remotely relevant? Please tell us how.

                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 05 2020, @02:16PM (1 child)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 05 2020, @02:16PM (#1084342)

                    Because that is somehow remotely relevant? Please tell us how.

                    Part of what "Made America Great" in the first place was acceptance of all people. Drawing some line in the sand for a New World Order wherein our borders are closed and if you didn't get in before the cutoff a new set of rules applies is a huge step backwards towards the world of genetically differentiated nations at constant war with one another.

                    Do we let in anybody who can swim the river or hike the desert? No. There always was a legal process for that, still is, and part of that legal process includes tolerance for some amount of less than legal activity, just like speeding on the roads, recreational drug use, buildings not to code, topless sunbathing, etc. It is and always has been part of our system of government: tolerance for some amount of "law breaking." Personally, I'd rather repeal the laws than leave them on the books for arbitrary rare enforcement at the discretion of our jackbooted enforcement types, but that's not how it has ever been done, and that's not likely to change. So, when "your guy" isn't elected chief executive, expect those polices to shift rather quickly, because that's how our system has always worked. Personally, I'd do things differently if I were absolute monarch of the world, but since I don't have that option - this is the best system available to me and my family, and we do have a fair degree of freedom to relocate to other jurisdictions if we wanted to.

                    Relevant example: again Central Florida, 1985 a Mexican family moves to town and opens a successful, modest restaurant in the WalMart strip mall. It is widely acknowledged by just about the entire county as the best restaurant in town. Mama runs a tight ship, dad cooks, and they hire a dozen or so locals, mostly Mexican girls, to serve and help out. Successful restaurant, plenty of money, Mama has a good immigration lawyer and follows all the advice to stay as legal as possible. Every couple of years Mama travels back home to visit family, and while her guiding influence is absent the quality of service and even food in the restaurant turns to shit, every time. But, when she comes back things straighten out immediately. Not only does Mama pay all her taxes, she donates back to the community, etc. 15 years later, WalMart builds a supercenter and the old location turns to a Tractor Supply, traffic dries up in the strip mall and the restaurant suffers. Flush with cash, but losing money due to lack of traffic, Mama moves out to "Restaurant Row" - a set of four restaurants on the main road, the local population can apparently only support three of these restaurants, one is perpetually out of business, but that's how it has been for 20+ years, the usual pattern is for a new restaurant to move in every 2-3 years and one of the old ones to lose business and close within a year. New location is a booming success, and the old fish restaurant suffers as a result. Old fish restaurant and the other two are owned by locals, they sic immigration on Mama and even though she has followed all procedures as well as the best immigration lawyer in the county knows how, she gets deported permanently. If that makes your heart all warm and fuzzy inside, you can just go fuck yourself with that feeling, that is NOT the America I was raised in and that is NOT the way I will vote to shape our future.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:50PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:50PM (#1084357) Journal
                      I see you didn't bother to answer the question. I find it interesting how you can't even talk about the US's human fertility without discoursing at length about your feelz on immigration policy and society's attitudes. None of that (including my feelz or votes on the same topics) affects how many kids US women (immigrant or not) choose to have. It's all red herring.

                      You demonstrate above that you have no support for your arguments here. Here and elsewhere you've retreated from more births than deaths to knowledge of future population demographics is unknowable and mean-ole khallow has the wrong feelz about immigration policy. I place the blame on ideological brain worms. They've feasted quite well in your above post.

                      I have never denied that the US has a higher birth rate than death rate or that third plus generation immigrants in the US had lots of kids in the past. What I have repeated stated, backed with facts, is that the US continues to grow in population (a thing I think we can sustain at fairly high levels for a long time) due solely to immigration - not just the immigrants themselves, but also the births due to those immigrants and their children.

                      To introduce more fact into this discussion, consider that the second generation immigration population increased by 5.3 million (from 34.9 million to 40.2 million) between 2010 and 2018 (see links in my previous post [soylentnews.org] for the data sources). At the end of that period there were 46.1 million immigrants. Even if we suppose that no second generation population died in that period, we have almost a third of the US's population growth during that period solely from immigrants and a birth rate of better than 14 births per thousand. If instead we suppose that 7% of immigrants died over that time period (like the US population as a whole), then we're looking at over 15 births per thousand. That alone drops the birth rate of everyone else from 12 to around 11.5 births per thousand. Add in the fertility of that second generation and you go even lower.

                      Now add that the US population is getting older so death rate increases and birth rate decreases, and you have the very predictable decline in US population as expected.
        • (Score: 1) by Socrastotle on Friday December 04 2020, @05:46AM (5 children)

          by Socrastotle (13446) on Friday December 04 2020, @05:46AM (#1083936) Journal

          Link to previous comment with more details. [soylentnews.org]

          In a nutshell, fertility is only measurable on the scale of a life-cycle. So if you want to see the overall net effect on a population from a certain level of fertility, you need to wait for about 80 years (the life expectancy of a human) *after* that point. To do a reduction to absurdity, imagine you started with a large population but only one in a million were having children. Until you reached the point where that initial population started reaching their life expectancy, you'd actually see a net increase in population per year! But when the declines did drop, you'd see massive reductions in population.

          The US fertility rate only dropped below sustainable levels in the 70s. So you're only going to start seeing sharp drops sometime around the 2050s.

          This is why fertility is so incredibly important. By the time evidence of a problem becomes apparent, it's long since passed the time where it could have been fixed through moderate means.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:50PM (4 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:50PM (#1084007)

            you need to wait for about 80 years

            The last 80 years has seen more than 3x increase in global population. Even though we're slowing, waiting another 80 years to see how things play out is not a great plan - unless you're going to be dead soon, then, sure, enjoy the party - I've always liked to live by the Def Leppard philosophy of: "It's better to burn out, than fade away." but, only on a personal level - as a species it's a shitty plan, or rather, it's a shitty thing to do to the children of the world which doesn't really involve planning at all.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by Socrastotle on Friday December 04 2020, @02:24PM (3 children)

              by Socrastotle (13446) on Friday December 04 2020, @02:24PM (#1084012) Journal

              But there's no sort of 'wait and see'. You can tell exactly what the population levels will be far ahead of time. This is how I can confidently tell you that you'll start seeing substantial 'native' population decline in the US around 2050. It's not an estimate or a guess, it's simply pairing fertility rate with life expectancy which gives you precise values. The past 80 years have seen a tripling of the population because who are you seeing die today? In general it's those born in the 40s. And they had families well beyond the replacement rate, and so even when they die their overall impact is a positive growth in population.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @03:03PM (2 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:03PM (#1084023)

                You can tell exactly what the population levels will be far ahead of time.

                No, I cannot.

                The population prediction curves I remember from the 1970s put us somewhere on the "worst case" side of the curves back then. Our methods and accuracy of results have not improved much since then.

                Crystal balls don't work. What you can tell exactly is what happened in the past. You can only project, estimate, guess, hope about the future for matters as complex as human population levels.

                This is how I can confidently tell you that you'll start seeing substantial 'native' population decline in the US around 2050.

                What age will your confident self be in 2050? What kind of skin will you have left in the game at that point. I'm sure your confidence is risking little for yourself.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by Socrastotle on Friday December 04 2020, @03:27PM (1 child)

                  by Socrastotle (13446) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:27PM (#1084033) Journal

                  Population change is a simple function of exactly one variable: fertility rates. Life expectancy, what might be expected to be another variable, plays a role only in defining how long a 'cycle' is.

                  The hyperbolic predictions of the 1970s were based upon the assumption that people would continue along their current fertility trends, which were extremely high at the time. They had no way to predict that the entire world (sans Africa and a handful of other locations) would have their fertility rates catastrophically collapse. And so yes I definitely could be wrong if (and only if) somehow the world's fertility rates just exponentially increase. However, (1) I don't believe that's what you're trying to argue and (2) I certainly see no reason to believe this is even a remotely likely scenario.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 04 2020, @07:06PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @07:06PM (#1084119) Journal

                    They had no way to predict that the entire world (sans Africa and a handful of other locations) would have their fertility rates catastrophically collapse.

                    There's no place in the world, including Africa, that isn't experiencing substantial declines in fertility. You can consider that catastrophic, but it won't be anywhere near as catastrophic as continued exponential growth.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:41PM (32 children)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday December 03 2020, @11:41PM (#1083818) Journal
      Historically people had large families to compensate for high infant and child mortality. Plus a lack of effective birth control, and laws that allow d men to rape their wives.

      We still have places like Syria where, for example, one man complained that 11 of his 20 children have died from disease or malnutrition.

      Religion doesn't help, with its view of men being in charge of women, and urging over-reproduction.

      A baby bust is a good thing. Humanity is like a plague of locusts. We need to get our numbers down before nature does it for us.

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday December 04 2020, @12:39AM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @12:39AM (#1083833) Journal

        Yes/No. That's an overly simplistic analysis. Certainly a "baby bust" CAN be a good thing, but that's not guaranteed. It depends on lots of variables, not all of which are known, or even guessed at. (I mean, we don't guess that the variable is significant.)

        Certainly there are too many people in the world, probably by a factor of about 10. But how you get from here to there is extremely significant. Easy access to video games and the internet is probably a good way to do it, but I'm not sure, because it decreases socialization, and leads to "pile on" bullying, etc. And people believing all sorts of garbage because that's what those they communicate with believe. And since they've never met them they can't tell that they're drooling idiots or mono-maniacal fanatics. (People are pretty bad at making that kind of determination of their friends, even if they know them well.)

        So that's one thing. Having lots of expensive toys that people can buy tends to decrease population growth, but at the expense of greater use of resources. That's another thing.

        Actually, a plague is probably the only thing that has the potential to work rapidly enough (baring things like nuclear war), but COVID isn't deadly enough to do the job. And "long COVID" means that it causes an increased use of resources. It needs to be about 5 to 10 times as deadly, and it would be nice if it went for a "clean kill", though I can't imagine any natural disease that operated that way. COVID is probably as close to that as a natural disease could ever get. The way it gives a lot of people hypo-oxygenation without them being aware of it while they're spreading the disease is about as painless an effect as a natural disease could manage. But it appears (based on reading) that only some people get that effect, and it's also transitory.

        Given everything, I think we really need to be working on durable nearly-closed ecosystems. There seems to be a good chance that the natural ecosystem will end up broken. E.g. plankton are the source of most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, and there have been several reports that they are dying off. Well, there's lots of different species of plankton, and so far a new one has (usually) moved in when an old has died off. But when you decrease diversity, the whole network becomes more fragile. (Also see "oceanic dead zones" https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/dead-zones/ [nationalgeographic.com] and realize that we don't really understand what causes them or how to fix them. We've got very reasonable ideas, and they *MAY* be correct.)

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:30AM (27 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:30AM (#1083845)

        Yes, a baby bust is a good thing.

        The thing that only clicked for me tonight is what a mis-information fest the whole "prosperity will lead to population decline" argument is. I always knew it was false, but I thought that the people who believed in it actually believed the stats they were standing on. It's so much weaker than that, it's a matter of: grasp at a few trends, don't even bother to do the sums, and claim that "in the future it will be true."

        Earth's overall population has been growing steadily around 75 million humans per year for a long, long time now. I know the theoretical models are for exponential growth and not much logical can explain the continued linear growth, but there it is - that's what the data show.

        Birth rate declines in the "prosperous nations" aren't a result of prosperity, they're a result of wage slavery oppression and distraction of the fertile population from child rearing with shiny baubles. Free up the masses to follow their biological instincts, take the endless-mindless screen entertainment out of their bedrooms and birth rates will remain well over replacement levels until the ecosystem completely collapses. The only way the prosperity hypothesis holds is if it is coupled with continued exhausting school followed by exhausting work in an economic climate of mostly working couples who don't get off the career hamster wheels until after menopause.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 04 2020, @04:12AM (15 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @04:12AM (#1083912) Journal

          The thing that only clicked for me tonight is what a mis-information fest the whole "prosperity will lead to population decline" argument is.

          Why? It hasn't been refuted! The US and such is still prosperous and is still subject to population decline as predicted.

          Earth's overall population has been growing steadily around 75 million humans per year for a long, long time now.

          ~70 years - which isn't a long, long time!

          Birth rate declines in the "prosperous nations" aren't a result of prosperity, they're a result of wage slavery oppression and distraction of the fertile population from child rearing with shiny baubles.

          This is just confirmation bias. We've talked about this again [soylentnews.org] and again [soylentnews.org] and again [soylentnews.org]. I guess you'll apologize in a few decades when the absolute population growth rate starts to decline right?

          Not that "wage slavery oppression" or "distraction of the fertile population" from creating a massive problem are bad things.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:10AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @06:10AM (#1083948)

            Human reproduction is the one area where khallow has no experience, expertise, or even reasonable fantasies about. Shut up, khallow!

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @01:47PM (13 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @01:47PM (#1084004)

            Why? It hasn't been refuted!

            In your head. US population in 2020 is adding 12 births for every 8.88 deaths (both per 1000 population) which is a net addition of 1 million people per year, that's not just sustaining population, that's continued growth by fertility inside the US borders, and 100% of those births are US citizens, by definition.

            ~70 years - which isn't a long, long time!

            Population 1950: 2.5B

            Population 2020: 7.8B

            Not only is it a long long time, it is a critically damaging 3x increase of world population of h. sapiens, directly responsible for the 6th mass extinction event.

            This is just confirmation bias.

            In your head.

            I guess you'll apologize in a few decades when the absolute population growth rate starts to decline right?

            Sure, except you'll be dead long before that ever happens.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 04 2020, @07:10PM (12 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @07:10PM (#1084120) Journal
              It is also evidence for declining human fertility globally. As I have noted before, the US would have a lower birthrate than death rate, if immigration were vastly lower, because the US brings in high fertility humans from the rest of the world.
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @07:24PM (11 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @07:24PM (#1084126)

                It is also evidence for declining human fertility globally.

                Not declining fast enough to result in population stability. At 75 million per year added, the "fertility rate" can decline forever while population continues to grow forever.

                Examine your own reasons for wishing that population stability will be here "any day now"? How much wishful thinking is driving that belief? Now, examine the likely reasons for the sources of your opinions/data, what would be their motivation to present unbiased truth - and is it anywhere near as strong as their likely motivations to blow sunshine up your ass?

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 05 2020, @02:18AM (10 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2020, @02:18AM (#1084244) Journal

                  At 75 million per year added, the "fertility rate" can decline forever while population continues to grow forever.

                  As I told you before, there's no stable mechanism by which a population can increase linearly forever. The problem here is that near constant increase in population means a decline in percent growth rate - that decline and has gone negative in a number of populations.

                  So we have every population declining in percent growth rate with no obvious stopping point and a number of populations that have already gone negative. And your present excuse for claiming this won't happen for global populations is that there might be a bias against unbiased truth, maybe.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:44PM (9 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:44PM (#1084340)

                    there might be a bias against unbiased truth, maybe.

                    Worked way too close to academia and scholarly publication for the past 30 years to believe that there is anything but bias in published works. Not maybe, an overwhelming majority of what is published is biased, prejudiced, myopic, and confirmed in the echo chamber of "peer review." A significant minority is also self-serving.

                    Science is better than religion in that it attempts to confirm itself with a broader set of observations and remain (somewhat) more open to revision in the face of overwhelming evidence, neither can predict future human behavior worth a damn.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:11PM (8 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:11PM (#1084355) Journal

                      Worked way too close to academia and scholarly publication for the past 30 years to believe that there is anything but bias in published works.

                      Which is quite irrelevant to the thread.

                      Science is better than religion in that it attempts to confirm itself with a broader set of observations and remain (somewhat) more open to revision in the face of overwhelming evidence, neither can predict future human behavior worth a damn.

                      Demographics != human behavior.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:19PM (7 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 05 2020, @04:19PM (#1084361)

                        Demographics is observation of past human behavior. If future human behavior could be predicted, the stock market would be risk free.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:16AM (6 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:16AM (#1084462) Journal

                          Demographics is observation of past human behavior.

                          Concerning population growth, one of the biggest changes in demographics dynamics over the past couple of decades was the development of treatments for AIDS. Even with no change in human behavior, it means a significant slowdown in the decline of future population growth in Africa. That's not past human behavior.

                          If future human behavior could be predicted, the stock market would be risk free.

                          Because a prediction has to be perfectly accurate in order for it to be a prediction?

                          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:04AM (5 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:04AM (#1084487)

                            Because a prediction has to be perfectly accurate in order for it to be a prediction?

                            The difference between population decline, maintenance, and growth is an extremely fine line. Human women can easily produce 10+ offspring by the time they are 30 years old, and it's all basically a matter of choice, free will, and not procreating at those rates actually requires suppression of some of the strongest of natural instincts for decades. Predictions of that kind of behavior decades into the future on a global basis are no better than any of the other "Sociology Sciences." The presumption that global societies 40 years from now will resemble societies today any more than societies today resemble the 1980s is clearly, deeply flawed.

                            Given access to "the pill" and a reasonable level of prosperity, it _seems_ like we might slow population growth, but there is zero historical evidence for a reversal, only optimistic projections.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:00AM (4 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:00AM (#1084494) Journal

                              Given access to "the pill" and a reasonable level of prosperity, it _seems_ like we might slow population growth, but there is zero historical evidence for a reversal, only optimistic projections.

                              Aside, of course, from the entire developed world, including the US.

                              • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:52PM (3 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:52PM (#1084539)

                                Aside, of course, from the entire developed world, including the US.

                                So, when the top of the heap behaves one way, it's logically sound to assume the entire heap will follow suit?

                                Let's not forget, the U.S. has less than 5% of the world's population, but uses over 15% of the world's resources. Just "giving" the rest of the world U.S. levels of prosperity is arguably equivalent to a greater than tripling of the world population's current environmental impact.

                                China under a "one child" policy still grew their population over 40%, but as their birth rates drop their resource consumption is trending upward toward U.S. levels - with 18% of the world population China now emits 28% of the CO2.

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:20PM (2 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:20PM (#1084571) Journal

                                  So, when the top of the heap behaves one way, it's logically sound to assume the entire heap will follow suit?

                                  Or when the front of a train goes one way down a track, it's logical to assume the rest of the train will follow. What's missing from your statement above is an acknowledgement that everyone is heading towards developed world status. There is a universal move towards greater personal wealth, lower fertility, more infrastructure, and so on.

                                  Just "giving" the rest of the world U.S. levels of prosperity is arguably equivalent to a greater than tripling of the world population's current environmental impact.

                                  Which, let us note, doesn't mean much. Since that also means a great collective reduction in pollution and habitat destruction.

                                  China under a "one child" policy still grew their population over 40%, but as their birth rates drop their resource consumption is trending upward toward U.S. levels - with 18% of the world population China now emits 28% of the CO2.

                                  Yes, the CO2. That's a tradition Chicken Little approach. Find the few metrics that still appear to get worse like CO2 or wealth inequality (of cherry picked regions, of course) rather than the ones that don't, like most other pollution emissions, human prosperity, peace, human fertility, etc.

                                  There is a point here to my continued insistence. When we see only the worst in the world, it gives us cover to make the worst decisions. If humans are going to die of massive, horrible Malthusian disaster (and deliberate use of negative language to describe highly positive and successful phenomena), then just about anything that we can spin as reducing human population is justifiable. One can't sell the bug paste utopia [soylentnews.org], if one describe the present in too glowing terms. The present has to be as wrong as one can spin it.

                                  My point all along is that we have an approach that while perhaps not as low in environmental impact as you would like, is already working on about a billion people. That's a pretty big prototype. Rather than ignore it, I think we ought to make it successful on a global scale as fast as we can do it. Among other things, that means spreading strong capitalist/democratic systems everywhere with strong legal protections for businesses and property owners. And yes, that means continued "wage slavery" and continued "distraction of the fertile population" - huge positive impacts for everyone everywhere.

                                  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday December 10 2020, @01:34AM (1 child)

                                    by acid andy (1683) on Thursday December 10 2020, @01:34AM (#1085795) Homepage Journal

                                    Since that also means a great collective reduction in pollution and habitat destruction.

                                    Where's the evidence for that? The developed world only slowed up destroying their own wild habitats when they had already destroyed vast amounts of them and also developed the capability to outsource their manufacturing and resource acquisition to developing countries. If the developing countries stop their slash and burn, where's the production going to come from for the massively increased demand for consumption (in all countries)?

                                    --
                                    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 10 2020, @01:50AM

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 10 2020, @01:50AM (#1085798) Journal

                                      Where's the evidence for that? The developed world only slowed up destroying their own wild habitats when they had already destroyed vast amounts of them and also developed the capability to outsource their manufacturing and resource acquisition to developing countries.

                                      In other words, evidence. The developed world isn't a small part of the world. Thank you for answering your own question.

                                      If the developing countries stop their slash and burn, where's the production going to come from for the massively increased demand for consumption (in all countries)?

                                      Because we can't make anything without slash and burn? I would suggest here production that doesn't require the massive environmental impact of things like slash and burn - another thing which the developed world has figured out.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Friday December 04 2020, @06:45AM

          by Socrastotle (13446) on Friday December 04 2020, @06:45AM (#1083958) Journal

          I think it's more about propaganda than anything else. An anecdote most people are not familiar with is Iran. [wikipedia.org] Iran is, of course, a Muslim majority nation and Muslims worldwide have extremely high birthrates. Except in Iran. Here [worldbank.org] is a graph of their fertility rates to contrast the dates.

          In the late 80s Iran decided they wanted to start controlling their population simply because they realized that the growing population was going to rapidly outpace their resources. So they launched a massive and widespread fertility + propaganda campaign including widespread distribution of various birth control mechanisms, free vasectomies, and even requiring mandatory birth control classes before couples could be married. It worked, big time. Their fertility rate went from 5+ in 1989 to 2.2 in 1999 and then entering into sub-replacement levels in 2009 at 1.8. Then they realized *this* was an even bigger problem and reversed course around 2006, again. And so now the propaganda and messaging is back to being in favor of nice big families, and their fertility rate is back on the rise - up about 17% since 2009 and again starting to rise above sub-replacement levels.

          In the US our cultural propaganda tends to put women working in corporations and other fields on a pedestal. Whereas, women who choose to raise families are generally negative portrayed. This trend, to varying degrees, started about the same time that are fertility rate started plummeting. I think a big test case will be China. China is has developed a culture very similar to the US where women are expected to participate in the workforce in lieu of raising a family. And their family planning regimen was the strictest in the world effectively outlawing having more than 1 child. But now they're aggressively trying to reverse the trend, but while also staying with their current secular + capitalist style society which is much more similar to what we have, in contrast with Iran. If they do succeed (and it's looking like they will) then it's fairly safe to say that propaganda is the sole driver. If they don't, then it's likely that economic factors do play a significant role.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:45PM (9 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @03:45PM (#1084038) Journal
          the declines started after the pill. So during the economic expansion phase. After all, if women are taking the pill, they're not having babies.

          That alone is enough to turn exponential growth to linear growth, irrespective of economics.

          It's also why religions target the pill as evil. It cuts down on events that bind families to religion, such as baptism and christenings. Even though the pill means fewer abortions.

          Religion - the original political scam.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @03:56PM (8 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @03:56PM (#1084042)

            But what people miss is that the "declines" are declines in the rate of growth, growth has never stopped, it is only proceeding more slowly than before, but still proceeding in a single direction: more and more people.

            Religion was government in the Middle Ages, separation of church and state was an attempt to get religious dogma out of government.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @04:39PM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @04:39PM (#1084060) Journal

              There is no such thing as separation of state and religion in US politics.

              Just look at your pervert-in-chief and his shameless manipulation of the religious right. Because both Trump and evangelical leaders like their flocks dumb and ripe for fleecing.

              Try going to a country where politicians who try to bring their personal religious beliefs into public debate and are roundly condemned for it.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @05:42PM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @05:42PM (#1084083)

                Because both Trump and evangelical leaders like their flocks dumb and ripe for fleecing.

                They're not the only ones, pretty much the whole conservative side these days seems to need that.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:53PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @05:53PM (#1084089)

              Are you bad at math? You think that even if couples had only one kid, the population would continue to grow? It would until the old folks DIE OFF, and then you must see that 2 people having only 1 kid results in the couple not replacing themselves in the population. If growth is decreasing, and this continues, you eventually get to where growth becomes negative. Car analogy: you are driving at 50 miles per hour. You gently step on the brake. Your speed decreases, but you say, I am still moving forward! Keep your foot gently on that brake. Eventually, your speed becomes zero.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 04 2020, @07:12PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2020, @07:12PM (#1084122) Journal
              That'll only remain true until those rates are negative.
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 04 2020, @07:21PM (3 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday December 04 2020, @07:21PM (#1084125)

                And the sun will rise in the east until it doesn't. Human population growth will stop, one way or another, likely before the sun stops rising in the east, but there is nothing beyond conjecture and opinion shaping propaganda to say that it will stop at any given level.

                Malthus wasn't wrong, just early.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:52AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:52AM (#1084237) Journal

                  Human population growth will stop, one way or another, likely before the sun stops rising in the east, but there is nothing beyond conjecture and opinion shaping propaganda to say that it will stop at any given level.

                  Notice that you're blowing off evidence you presented yourself in this very thread that was to the contrary.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:37PM (1 child)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday December 05 2020, @01:37PM (#1084338)

                    Notice that you're blowing off evidence you presented yourself in this very thread that was to the contrary.

                    That conjecture that you call evidence is in conflict with the conjecture you have presented... neither contain a shred of evidence about the future.

                    Of course I believe that "my" conjecture is the more likely to end up correlating with the future - from my perspective it has the best correlation with and extrapolation of patterns of behavior I have seen in the past. However, the variability / noise / unpredictability of those patterns is overwhelming. Honest statisticians call it the flaw of averages.

                    Insurance companies were certain they understood the risks presented by Hurricanes, then Andrew hit. Water management types have been drawing "500 year flood" lines on maps for a century, they have been redrawing those lines every few years over the past several decades. Human population is living on low lying beachfront property in the Caribbean, soaking up the rays and enjoying the lifestyle. There could be another post-Malthusian reprieve, fusion power is one such candidate, it would be foolhardy to bet the future of civilization that it will happen, but old men have the perfect bankruptcy clause: they're going to die before anyone can collect on their bad calls.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:10PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2020, @03:10PM (#1084354) Journal

                      That conjecture that you call evidence is in conflict with the conjecture you have presented... neither contain a shred of evidence about the future.

                      That's why we have evidence.

                      Of course I believe that "my" conjecture is the more likely to end up correlating with the future - from my perspective it has the best correlation with and extrapolation of patterns of behavior I have seen in the past. However, the variability / noise / unpredictability of those patterns is overwhelming. Honest statisticians call it the flaw of averages.

                      So you claim. That's already been refuted several times.

                      Insurance companies were certain they understood the risks presented by Hurricanes, then Andrew hit. Water management types have been drawing "500 year flood" lines on maps for a century, they have been redrawing those lines every few years over the past several decades. Human population is living on low lying beachfront property in the Caribbean, soaking up the rays and enjoying the lifestyle. There could be another post-Malthusian reprieve, fusion power is one such candidate, it would be foolhardy to bet the future of civilization that it will happen, but old men have the perfect bankruptcy clause: they're going to die before anyone can collect on their bad calls.

                      In other words, just a typical argument from ignorance fallacy. Because our knowledge about a few cherry picked examples aren't as complete as we'd like, that means you're right. Where's the long tail to short term population predictions?

                      And we don't need post-Malthusian reprieves with negative population growth.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @02:52PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2020, @02:52PM (#1084017)

        It's not rape you stupid harpy, you don't like it? Don't get married.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by barbara hudson on Friday December 04 2020, @03:50PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday December 04 2020, @03:50PM (#1084039) Journal
          Sex without consent is rape. Marriage doesn't enter into it. It's no longer a "permission slip" for marital rape, and never should have been promoted as such by religion or society in general.

          Women are not property. That the laws used to say otherwise is solely the responsibility of men who used force, violence, and marital rape to perpetuate the scam.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 08 2020, @01:03AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 08 2020, @01:03AM (#1085081)

            Women are not property.

            Just like property is a construct of society, the notion that women - or people in general - are not property is also a social construct, not an absolute law of anything.

            I think it's a good social construct, but it's no more absolute, real or natural than money or taxes.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
(1) 2