US birth rates continue to decline. Well below the 2.1 births per woman needed to maintain current population. Presumably those empty slots will be filled by immigrants.
What happens if the birth rate continues to fall? Already enrollment is down, schools are closing, and many positions are difficult to fill.
Suppose the birth rate falls to 0.1. Only one woman in ten decides to have a baby. How would things change? Would we appreciate mothers more? Provide more benefits? More respect?
The poor seem to have more children. Perhaps they will inherit the earth.
Sorry, I don’t see were this is a problem. Having less people is a plus. I was raised in So. Calif. out in dairy land. It was green and the beaches were nice. 12 miles from downtown LA and you could drive without traffic. Orange County was a green and open. You didn’t have housing out in the desert 100 mile away from anything. Ah, lower population would only be a dream. Things would change, yes, but for the better. Think of it, you could drive on the freeways!
And then promptly destroy it. They will have to adopt values and behaviors and a world view usually associated with people who are not among the mass of poor. Not a guarantee. Learn, know, understand. Work-for the future. That means delayed gratification. Less reliance on traditional “religious” guidance & understanding. If they succeed they will have fewer children. Segregate themselves from others to protect what they “have”. See the cycle re-booting? This whole subject has been called “being a victim of your own success.” Hey, freedom is good! Freedom to do or not do all the things that have become sort of a drag. Things that were always institutionalized social imperatives. I tip my head in the direction of marriage and family. Doing well then doing good/noblesse oblige vs Greed is good / my only moral is profit! I don’t know if something that changes very slowly can be called “disruptive” in the contemporary techno sense, but the change will probably not be without consequences.
Or, the poor who inherit via sheer numbers will simply take it and wreck it and revel in their “victory” and maybe we start over in a 1,000 years.
I think its easy to slip into a “poor” stereotype.
I hope we find some of them willing to accept training and advance into responsible positions. In fact I think that is necessary for our economic strength to continue.
Many are working hard in the struggle to feed their families and survive. Point them in the right direction and some will do very well.
Of course that won’t work for everyone. Spotting those with potential and encouraging them to advance will be important.
We all notice that over population stretches the earths resources and contributes to a variety of environmental problems. But shortage of manpower will impact our economy.
It would be great to hit the right balance. Yes, the trend is in the right direction. Reality is that the poor often have little else beside their children. And they depend on their surviving children to care for them in their old age. A very traditional situation that encourages large families–especially when infant survival rate is low.
A key aspect of this issue is not just the total number of people, but the age spectrum. A population where 75% of the people are retired is going to take some change from where we are now.