Jump to content

Talk:Population decline: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ivanalison (talk | contribs)
202 edits
m Cleared up my signing error (four tildes, not two)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 235: Line 235:


::{{Re|Guy Macon}} which of the specific statements do you claim are original research? This article has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{Re|Guy Macon}} which of the specific statements do you claim are original research? This article has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

:Although I believe high fertility causes many problems, the change made by EllenCT (18 March 2019) has made the Introduction biased towards low fertility. The pros & cons of high/low fertility rates should be discussed (in a balanced way) at a later point in the article, not in the introduction, in my opinion.[[User:Ivanalison|Ivanalison]] ([[User talk:Ivanalison#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ivanalison|contribs]]) 10:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:00, 18 March 2019

WikiProject iconSociology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Economic Impact

In one paragraph, it says "The effects of a declining population are bad for an economy" but in the next it says "The average standard of living...will tend to rise as the amount of land and resources per person will be higher. The period immediately after the Black Death, for instance, was one of great prosperity, as many had inheritances from many different family members." So which is it? Or is it controversial, hence the two viewpoints? In any case, it is very confusing as it is written.ErikHaugen 19:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing is exactly correct. By definition, a lower population will be bad for the economy. Fewer people means fewer people making things, so the value of the economy as a whole has to fall. But for the actual people concerned it might mean a much better standard of living individually. The article talks about the black death. terrible for those with property since labour became hard to get. Brilliant for the labourours since wages and working conditions shot up. The effect was a real improvement for most people. Sandpiper 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general the period of decline itself is almost always deleterious, but once the decline has ended the new smaller population is often better off. - SimonP 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it might be interesting to include late 16th century Mexico, where spanish overlords grabbed most of the land formerly inhabited by disease victims, which was to the detriment of the remaining native population.

A distinction between wealth of the country and wealth of the people must be made. For example, the US has a higher GDP growth than Japan, but since the US's population growth is much higher than Japan's (which is negative), the GDP per capita growth is higher in Japan. So the US is getting richer faster than Japan, but Japanese are getting richer faster than Americans. In a mining economy, such as Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Qatar,... since the amount of resources in the ground is fixed (or declining it is mined), the bigger the population, the poorer it becomes. A larger workforce can lead to higher volumes of mining, but that would make the mining reserves last less, thus impoverishing the future generations.
For a long time, in agricultural societies the motto was a mouth to feed is two hands to work, but with the increase of mechanisation, a very small number of farmers can feed a large population, so the limitation is more of land than manpower.
Maybe something can be said about real-estate too? With a declining population, land and houses become cheaper so people can afford bigger/better homes?
Last point: there's a high rate of unemployment in many countries, so a declining population will reduce unemployment, and I don't see how that can have a bad impact.AtikuX (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Growth potential for the total real GDP may be reduced with fewer workers, but that does not mean even that will enter into absolute decline, since other factors (e.g. natural resources, growth in productivity per worker and per hour due to technological progress) affect economic growth just as much if not more. Look at Russia and oil, for example. Their economy grew very rapidly for nearly a decade and their population is dropping faster each year. And oddly, their inflation has been in the double digits recently, which is even tougher to explain (theoretically should be deflation). Also, the rate of decline may be important--a faster decline should in principle be worse for the economy than a gradual one for obvious reasons, even if the net change is identical. And what if a country has a large excess population (and/or density) to begin with? Surely there would be some economic relief from moderate emigration or having fewer kids, no? In other words, the correlation between population growth and economic growth is more tenuous that conventional wisdom says, and I don't blame anyone for being confused about it.Ajax151 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of speculation and irrelevant correlation. For example, the "economic growth" experienced in the mid 2000's was a result of an economic bubble which has since collapsed (making several points made in this section irrelevant). Declining population has a myriad of negative effects, which arguably more severe than the benefits. This section is slanted and should be removed until everything can be cited by actual data. NPG is hardly an unbiased source for information either (as its stated goal is to encourage Negative Population Growth). Perhaps this sections "facts" can be backed up by data from national research organizations instead of ideologically aligned entities. Mrsdelaney (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But interestingly, Japan and Germany were the first countries to exit the recession as well. And the epicenter of both the bubble and recession was the United States. Makes you wonder.Ajax151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]


This article is incredibly poorly written and is all over the place. It repeats points and gives a barrage of facts without any apparent cohesion. It also loses focus of the effects of population decline by introducing many irrelevant statistics. It also seems fairly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.103.97 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Support merger. These two articles are trying to treat the same subject. The Underpopulation article tends to bear a POV. Merging can help reconcile the very legitimate point made by erikhaugen above. Joan-of-arc 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User comment in article

The following user comment and content was removed from the article:

"==Material moved from overpopulation== someone had placed the following text in the overpopulation article. it was misleading in that article to emphasize the relatively small population declines compared to the large growth in other lesser developed countries. the material may be useful here:

  • During 2005-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million. Because deaths are projected to exceed births in the more developed regions by 73 million during 2005-2050, population growth in those regions will largely be due to international migration.
  • In 2000-2005, net migration in 28 countries either prevented population decline or doubled at least the contribution of natural increase (births minus deaths) to population growth. These countries include Austria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom. Cdcdoc 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Khatru2 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism is not Communism

From this specific paragraph, -- The population of former Soviet Republics, with the exception of Muslim majority nations and oil rich Azerbaijan, is falling due to health factors and low replacement. Much of Eastern Europe has lost population due to migration to Western Europe. In Eastern Europe and Russia, natality fell abruptly after the end of Socialism. -- I removed the Socialism at the end and replaced it with Communism. According to modern political science, Socialism is a system of economy. Many still confuse it with communism which is a combinaiton of a system of rule, oligarchy, and a system of economy, socialism. Casimiri 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underpopulation

The mention of underpopulation states that it is not a term that is in opposition to overpopulation; this is incorrect. Underpopulation can be defined as a country which does not have a sufficient population to exploit (use) all the resources within a country to their full extent. There are arguments that countries with populations that are not skilled enough are underpopulated. The UK, for instance, it can be argued, MAY be underpopulated. Canada is certainly underpopulated. I would be interested to know if anyone could possibly argue anything different. bliz 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to exploit all the resources? I read an article from the UN (I think) saying something that Russia needs tens of millions of immigrants to exploit Siberia, but it didn't even mention the possibility that these region can very well be left alone. Mineral and fossil resources are non-renewable so if a region has a high enough population to exploit them "to their full extent", then in a few years, there won't be anything left so the region will become overpopulated.
Underpopulation (to me at least) indicates that there is a vital need for a higher population, just like as overpopulation means that there's too much people for a good use of resources. For example, if you need say four people to exploit a field (ploughing, seeding, watering, harvesting...), then if you have only three people then it would be underpopulation as they wouldn't be able to feed themselves. You could have 40 people to exploit the field to its full potential, but as long as food collected > food needed, your population is at a sustainable level.
Some small villages are in a way underpopulated, as the population is not high enough to have doctors, teachers,... but that's more of a population distribution thing.AtikuX (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The example of the field is really talking about economic efficiency, not what is the correct population level for a country. Countries may say they are underpopulated when they don't have the labor available to man their industry. Under this definition, the US has been underpopulated for most of its existence. No country would want to exploit all of its resources right now, so it is not clear to me when the underpopulation period ends and the over population period begins.

Nations may say they are underpopulated when they don't have the manpower to create an army large enough to defend themselves or beat their neighbors, but this is a question of relative population, not absolute population. Iran right now is claiming that it is underpopulated because it does not have an army big enough to threaten the west, yet they are over exploiting water and several other key resources as they are calling for more people. Thus, the idea of under population seems to be one of point of view rather than one of science. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. 74.77.123.229 (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

map

the map is wrong, because germany suffers population decline and SA not.!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny-bollock-rotten (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs coverage of efforts to bring about population decline

Article is a bit unbalanced at the moment, needs coverage of efforts to bring about population decline (NPG, population environment connection, etc.) Zodon (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs coverage of causes of population decline

The culture of contraception, more than anything else, is what decreases fertilities. Contraceptive sex actively displaces reproductive sex because it hinders the development of taste for family life. People get the idea that sex need not have any result, so that puts sex in a vacuum and makes family life limited or non-existent. These facts need to be in article. I'm currently looking for hard info that relates contraception to decreased fertilities. I may add something later on. If not, anyone else may. 74.195.16.39 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


South Africa

So, what is the truth about South Africa? Is the population increasing or decreasing? It is increasing thanks to immigration from neighbor nations like Mozambique and Zimbawe....or is it decreasing as a consequence of AIDS?--83.35.180.179 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cause of decline in Russia

Currently the table entry for the cause of decline in Russia is "more deaths than births". Seems a bit vague...Ordinary Person (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia should be removed from the list as its population has returned to growth. LokiiT (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add to table, per www.un.org/esa/population/unpop ... % decline 2010 / estimated 2050 population

Table:1 Population Decline in Percent by Country (from various sources)
Country Year Population % natural decrease[1] Main reason for decrease % decline by 2050[2]
Bulgaria Bulgaria 2009 7,704,687 0.79 declining births and life expectancy 34.93
Estonia Estonia 2009 1,299,371 0.632 declining births 33.25
Latvia Latvia 2009 2,231,503 0.614 declining births and life expectancy 30.38
Japan Japan 2009 127,078,679 0.191[1] declining births 26.13
Ukraine Ukraine 2009 45,700,395 0.632 declining births and life expectancy 26.07
Russia Russia 2009 141,927,297 0.177 declining life expectancy 21.67
Lithuania Lithuania 2009 3,555,179 0.279 declining births and life expectancy 21.37
Slovenia Slovenia 2009 2,005,692 0.113 20.28
Belarus Belarus 2009 9,648,533 0.378 declining births and life expectancy 19.5
Poland Poland 2009 38,482,919 0.047 declining births 16.58

'Suggering this paragraph before Long term population decline' Understanding the Decline Europe’s population has declined drastically and rapidly over the last fifty years. There are various reason why, starting with the multiple financial situations of families or single mothers now face. Low income influences low fertility rate because raising children is expensive. As a result there is a decreasing in the size of families large to smaller ones in Europe. Another major influence on low fertility rates is change in some European economies, leaving families uncertain in their future financial situations and the decision one the correct time to have children. This regulates the size of families and in some cases couples decide to not have children all together. These changes in equilibrium does not go unnoticed, the fluctuation in the European population has cause its damage, and will continue to if changes does not take place immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebony SHUwrite (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "CIA World Factbook -- Japan". CIA World Factbook. Retrieved October 6, 2009.

Article confuses replacement rate fertility with zero population growth

The replacement rate is the rate necessary for parents to replace themselves in the population. It is not fertility greater than mortality. Thus, you can have replacement rate level fertility and have population growth if you have an unstable age distribution with few old and many young. This is the case for most countries that are in the middle of the demographic transition at the moment and have just achieved low fertility. You can also have population decline at replacement rate fertility if you have an unstable age distribution as a baby boom reaches the age of mortality. This is the case in the US right now. Most of the mentions of replacement rate in the article are really referring to fertility below the rate of mortality, or fertility less that what is required for zero population growth. It is not clear if these are also below the replacement rate of fertility. These are major misuses of demographic terminology. Someone should fix this. Avram Primack (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include something about theRoman empire?

The decline of the Roman empire is often said to have been partly a result of low-fertility on the part of the patrician classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.169.236 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Population decline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Population decline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article suggests low birth rates are absolutely bad and needs to be balanced

I propose the following inclusion:

White nationalists use evidence of a declining birth rate in support of their extremist views and calls to violence.[1] Lower fertility rates are generally associated with dramatic increases in population health and longevity.[2] Increasing populations are not necessary to maintain economic growth and social vitality because of advances in automation and workers living healthy lives much longer into old age. Declining populations require fewer scarce resources and pollute less.[3] Fewer dependents mean that families, regions, and societies can achieve more productive uses of available resources and increase their quality of life.[4] While there were in the past advantages to high fertility rates, that "demographic dividend" has now largely disappeared.[5]

References

  1. ^ Betuel, Emma (January 13, 2019). "CDC Data on Declining US Fertility Rate Is Being Used by White Nationalists". Inverse.
  2. ^ ESHRE Capri Workshop Group (1 October 2005). "Noncontraceptive health benefits of combined oral contraception". Human Reproduction Update. 11 (5): 513–525. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi019. ISSN 1355-4786.
  3. ^ Davis, Nicola (26 December 2018). "Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  4. ^ Lee, R; Mason, A (10 October 2014). "Is low fertility really a problem? Population aging, dependency, and consumption". Science (New York, N.Y.). 346 (6206): 229–34. doi:10.1126/science.1250542. PMID 25301626. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  5. ^ Smeeding, TM (10 October 2014). "Economics. Adjusting to the fertility bust". Science (New York, N.Y.). 346 (6206): 163–4. doi:10.1126/science.1260504. PMID 25301602. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

Are there any objections to including those statements in the introduction? EllenCT (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object on two grounds. First I object to EllenCT Proposing a change on on an article talk page and then making that change an hour later before anyone responded and labeling the change "per talk".
Secondly, I object to EllenCT inserting WP:OR into multiple articles. See Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#White genocide conspiracy theory is unbalanced and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Are these edits to White genocide conspiracy theory original research? and User talk:Jimbo Wales#Double standard, where many experienced editors have told you that you are wrong and nobody has supported your proposed changes.
Despite abundant evidence to the contrary (it turns out that neo-nazis are not shy about expressing their views. Who knew?) You keep insisting that the white genocide conspiracy theory is that low birthrates are bad. This basic error is firmly based on original research and not on what any reliable source says about the WGCT. The actual WGCT believes that low white birthrates combined with high non-white birthrates are bad, and the belief that this is a a deliberate conspiracy. The Neo-nazis and racists who hold this theory would be quite happy if the birthrate of whites went down while the birthrate of non-whites went down farther and faster. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: which of the specific statements do you claim are original research? This article has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. EllenCT (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I believe high fertility causes many problems, the change made by EllenCT (18 March 2019) has made the Introduction biased towards low fertility. The pros & cons of high/low fertility rates should be discussed (in a balanced way) at a later point in the article, not in the introduction, in my opinion.Ivanalison (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_decline&oldid=888319198"