This thread is inspired by another: view original post
Frequently I see posts on the Flood similar to that which inspired this thread. I'm sorry to single Scarekr0we out, but his is just the example closest to hand.
Before anyone gets uppity: This isn't an abortion thread. I simply mean to correct misconceptions some members may have as to the answer to overpopulation. It's simple and [i]evidence based[/i] unlike "Abort all teh babies!" or "Single child by law" or "Don't have kids". Some of the wackier solutions I've seen proposed here include halting research on diseases such as cancer and HIV in order to allow them to "control" the population, and even an outright "human cull".
Such suggestions could not be further from the true answer, which is simple development of healthcare, living quality, and education. See: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model#Kerala_model_of_healthcare]Kerala[/url]. I'll let the stats speak for themselves.
Need more proof? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjusted_HDI_2]Note how most of the countries ranked highest on the inequality-adjusted HDI are North-Eastern European.[/url] Guess which region has some of the lowest birth rates? [url=http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?sa=X&biw=1920&bih=908&tbm=isch&tbnid=drLDW94vUxY50M:&imgrefurl=http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php%3Fpid%3DS0042-96862007001100018%26script%3Dsci_arttext&docid=ObmiJnq7dYuVrM&imgurl=http://www.scielosp.org/img/revistas/bwho/v85n11/a18fig01.gif&w=777&h=417&ei=zk9UUtvyOuSu0wWCyYCoAw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:82&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=164&tbnw=306&start=0&ndsp=31&tx=117&ty=120]The Scandinavian countries are a frickin' sliver.[/url]
In fact, Germany has such a low birth rate that its population is expected to drop by [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/europe/germany-fights-population-drop.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]19%[/url] by 2060. Of course, this causes problems of its own and has scary implications for the German economy - [i]but it goes to show that simple humanitarian development is the answer.[/i]
-
I believe this is correct. I'm sure it's something along the lines of women being too busy with careers and the such, and also that children cost the parents quite a bit of money in more developed countries. While in less developed countries, women don't usually have a career and stay at home, usually to act as baby makers. Also, having more children equates to more family income in extremely less developed countries as more children working on the family farm the more income it can produce. As society does not transform from one straight to the other, there is a curve from less developed to more developed... More developed meaning less children. I'm pretty sure that's mostly correct anyway...