The insidious "Roe" effect

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby haggis » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:29 am

Economist

"…the Democratic Party is ceasing to be a mom-and-pop party. Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation points out that the fertility rate in the Kerry states is 12% lower than in the Bush states. Vermont, the home of Howard Dean and perhaps the most left-wing state in the country, produces an annual average of 49 children for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age; in Utah, where 71% of the population voted for Mr Bush, the figure is 91. In deep-blue cities such as San Francisco and Seattle you find more dogs than children. "

So the question I have is this.

Are the Democrats “abortioning” themselves out of the picture? (Note to Selma, I've already secured all rights to the word “abortionization” as a transitive verb)

Or are they just too stupid to breed? :D


I invite comments or other theories on why (if!) the Democrats are losing ground among the voters of the future.
Haggis

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
haggis
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:01 am
Location: warm, humid, and wonderfully sticky Dallas, Texas!!

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:18 pm

In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder.

Prof Stephen Hawking - The Universe in a Nutshell (2001)
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:20 pm

We must alert and organise the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.

Jacques-Yves Cousteau
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:21 pm

...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.

Isaac Asimov
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:22 pm

Maybe they have something.?
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:00 pm

Oh sorry, were you literally talking about aborting babies?

I hadn't taken it that way but if you were, that is an entirely different subject.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby haggis » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:20 pm

RC,

Well, actually I was commenting on the perception that the Democratic Party seems to be losing future members due to the low birth rates and migration to the exurbs.

As to your other point, I agree the global population is growing but the rate of growth has been declining for decades.

This projection from the U.S. Census shows that population growth plateaued more than 40 years ago at 2.2 and have been declining ever since.

Although UN’s worse rates of population growth show the population around 65 Billion around the year 2300 - and remember those growth stats are based on statistical models that have a history of inflating growth - places like Europe has been falling short of babies for 30 years.

According to UN data, the average European woman of child-bearing age is likely to have 1.4 children, down sharply from 2.0 in the early 1970s. The minimum needed for a stable population is 2.1. The current U.S. growth rate of 1% is being maintained largely by immigration.


[url=http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm]Human Population: Fundamentals of Growth
Population Growth and Distribution[/url] predicts:

"Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries.”

And then there are those “unintended consequences” we run into sometimes. The Chinese policy of one child per family has led to wide scale abortion of female fetuses in favor a male fetus as the “one child.” Will the reduction of eligible females in the next 10 – 20 years affect China’s growth rate?

How will wide spread AIDS in Africa affect growth rates on that continent?

How do you think this will play out?
Haggis

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
haggis
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 12:01 am
Location: warm, humid, and wonderfully sticky Dallas, Texas!!

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby Shapley » Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:46 pm

RC,

According to the latest figures I could find (2002), there were approximately 6,200,000,000 people in the world. The surface of the earth contains about 36,660,000,000 acres of land. If we assume 10% of that is arable (the figure is actually much higher than that), then that leaves us with 3,660,000,000, or roughly 1.4 acres of arable land per person. Keeping in mind that we don't need to live on arable land, and we can get food from the remaining 70% of the earth that is covered with water, we are hardly short of space.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 4:22 pm

Lots of things effect fertility rates.

Typical age a woman begins having intercourse is a big one. In turn, there is a correlation between formal education of women as well as a womans rank in society (equality issue).

Religion and other social issues play a role too.

Trying to tie that to political parties from the article you quoted just makes it look like republicans are poor, uneducated, chauvenist pigs. I don't hardly buy that.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby shostakovich » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:25 pm

Great question from Haggis: "Are the Democrats “abortioning” themselves out of the picture? (Note to Selma, I've already secured all rights to the word “abortionization” as a transitive verb)

Or are they just too stupid to breed?"

--------------------------------------------------------
I think you are on to something here. As for the second question, how bright do you have to be?
-------------------------------------------------------

Overpopulation is one of my hot buttons. It's great to know we have an AVERAGE of 1.4 acres per person on earth. Shap, didn't you recently write you had 18? Piggy, piggy.

Reducing world population would automatically reduce consumption of resources and pollution of all kinds. It would temporarily disrupt economies, but would be beneficial in the long run. Unfortunately, no politician (in this country) is about to endorse "birth control". The tried and true methods of population control, war, famine, disease, are so much better.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:37 pm

According to the latest figures I could find (2002), there were approximately 6,200,000,000 people in the world. The surface of the earth contains about 36,660,000,000 acres of land. If we assume 10% of that is arable (the figure is actually much higher than that), then that leaves us with 3,660,000,000, or roughly 1.4 acres of arable land per person. Keeping in mind that we don't need to live on arable land, and we can get food from the remaining 70% of the earth that is covered with water, we are hardly short of space.

1.4 acres per person today? WOW, thats phenominal.

I guess we shouldn't worry about what Stephen Hawkings predicts. Heck thats what..., six generaltions away? Besides, he's probably just some liberal chicken little know nothing... ;) (just pullin your chain)

I don't know about you but there's no way I would argue science & math with Stephen Hawkings - wheelchair or no, that guy kicks my rear upside down and backward.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:38 pm

Oh Hi Shos!
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:21 pm

Hey Haggis,

Looks like we'll be a mostly poor and hungry population. What should we do? What about forced sterilization or negative incentives like China? How about education? I think if you do a bunch of research, you'll still find the same stuff I have about what causes general variation in fertility.

YIKES! Not pretty! This is why it is a very bad idea to try to tie this to politics. There may be a connection but it isn't pretty and I'm not into slamming an entire policital party (especially the one I just voted against - that would be tasteless wouldn't it...shutting up now)

Ironically, the same article also refers to your buddy Thomas Malthus. I do recall what you said about Thomas Malthus. I think you said he was entirely "crap". He based his theories on the fact that human population increases geometrically rather than arithmetically as people had predicted before. This is the one thing people still agree with. Turns out he wasn't entirely crap. :p

<small>[ 11-24-2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:35 pm

According to UN data, the average European woman of child-bearing age is likely to have 1.4 children, down sharply from 2.0 in the early 1970s. The minimum needed for a stable population is 2.1.
May I ask where the "stable population" birth rate came from?

Doesn't a stable population also depend on a death rate?
Combine the two to get a "growth rate"?

Take me to your leader.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:44 pm

The current U.S. growth rate of 1% is being maintained largely by immigration.
If...

1.the world population continues to grow exponentially

2. and growth rate is higher in underdeveloped countries with less educated citizens/younger more submissive mothers

3. but the US population growth rate is slowing and being maintained largely by immigrants

4. and Democrats are becoming outnumbered (just according to the article in post one of the thread) (because they are too stupid to breed? :roll: )

5. what does that say about Bush winning the last election?

Please tell me you aren't finding merit in that article. Please.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:51 pm

"I invite comments or other theories on why (if!) the Democrats are losing ground among the voters of the future."

I think it impossible to predict weather or not voters of the future will be a particular party. There are quite a few variables to isolate. Much easier to predict how much arable land per person exists today.

I hate that article. yick. Can you tell?
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:45 pm

Shap,

this one is for you.
Andrei Sakharov from his Nobel lecture:
The growth in population has already created exceptionally complicated economic, social, and psychological problems, and will in the future inevitably pose still more serious problems. In a great many countries, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the lack of food will be an overriding factor in the lives of many hundreds of millions of people, who from the moment of birth are condemned to a wretched existence on the starvation level. In view of this, future prospects are menacing, and in the opinion of many specialists tragic, despite the undoubted success of the "green revolution".
I was racking my brain to come up with a better source than Hawking but Einstein was pre-occupied with the atom bomb apparently.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby BigJon » Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:02 am

The starvation you quote is mainly due to corrupt and embeded government gangs who keep the populace just at the edge of need but not power. President Bush's ideas on nation building are bad why?

RC's a post whore
RC's a post whore
RC's a post whore

Striving for that first chair? :)

BigJon
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while. – Me! Feb 9, 2001
BigJon
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby RC » Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:45 am

PW? ME?
Hey, It's better than being accused of talking to myself ...

I'm gonna wait to respond to the rest and see if anyone else has something to say.

894
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The insidious "Roe" effect

Postby hal 9000 » Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:11 am

Here is a link to interesting Lecture Notes for a biology course at Eastern Kentucky University. The topic is world (over?)population and population growth rate. Thought it might interest some. :)
Gentleman! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
hal 9000
1st Chair
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 12:01 am
Location: Gainesville, FL

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron