« First « Previous Comments 14 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
terriDeaner
@
2011 May 25, 10:10am
Yes! Idiocracy is where we are going. At least in this country…
Why wait for the future? Fuck the Fed! Camacho for president in 2012!!!
terriDeaner
@
2011 May 25, 10:12am
Really though... regardless of socioeconomic level, how many genXer's or genYer's does anyone know with more than 3 (or even 2) kids?
I can't think of any that I know, although I can immediately think of several boomer families with 3+ kids.
Really though… regardless of socioeconomic level, how many genXer’s or genYer’s does anyone know with more than 3 (or even 2) kids?
I can’t think of any that I know, although I can immediately think of several boomer families with 3+ kids.
That's because most of gen Y can't afford any children regardless of socioeconomic level.
simchaland
@
2011 May 25, 10:41am
Yes! Idiocracy is where we are going. At least in this country…
Why wait for the future? Fuck the Fed! Camacho for president in 2012!!!
LOL!
Â¥
@
2011 May 26, 1:55am
How is it the population in Africa is exploding when supposedly a very high number of Africans have AIDS?
People can live with AIDS now. The infection rate is 5-10% of the population and the annual death rate is 5-10% of those infected, or .25% to 1% of the population. Population growth in eg. Nigeria is higher than India so their HIV death rate does not reduce their explosive growth much.
simchaland
@
2011 May 26, 5:49am
People can live with AIDS now. The infection rate is 5-10% of the population and the annual death rate is 5-10% of those infected, or .25% to 1% of the population. Population growth in eg. Nigeria is higher than India so their HIV death rate does not reduce their explosive growth much.
Wouldn’t children of those with AIDS die before they reproduced? Does Africa treat that 5-10% to a Western Standard of care with expensive cocktail drugs, etc.?
I believe that they can somehow prevent AIDS being transmitted from mom to child. Question is: A) Is mom diagnosed soon enough and B) Can she afford care? There isn’t a hospital at every corner in Africa nor is there Medicaid in nations where people live on a dollar a day.
Not every HIV+ mother will give birth to an HIV+ child. 15-30% of children born to HIV+ mothers who have not been treated turn out to be HIV+. A further 5-20% of these children of untreated mothers will become HIV+ through breastfeeding. Without treatment 50% of these HIV+ children die by the age of 2. (Statistics from the Avert website)
If you follow the link above you will see what treatments are available to treat an HIV+ mother and child to prevent transmission.
If you assume no treatment for the HIV+ mother or child and the HIV+ mother breastfeeds the child you will see anywhere from 20-50% of the children become HIV+ who were born to mothers who are HIV+. So if you are assuming 5-10% infection rates in a region, then you have about a 1.0%-5.0% HIV transmission rate for children being born to all mothers while assuming that the HIV+ mothers receive no treatment and that all of the HIV+ mothers breastfeed their children. It can slow population increase but not halt it most likely, even without treatment where infection rates are 5-10%, if those infection rates hold steady.
But there are countries where there are higher rates of transmission. In 2010 the infection rates of Zimbabwe and Zambia were 10-15% of adults. South Africa appears have had a higher rate of 17.8% in 2010. In 2010 Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland had the highest infection rates 24.8%, 23.6%, 25.9% respectively. (Statistics from the Avert website)
In those countries population growth (rates from Index Mundi website) is as follows:
Zimbabwe (projected 2011): 3.13%
Zambia (projected 2011): 3.13%
South Africa (projected 2011): -.38%
Botswana (projected 2011): 1.78%
Lesotho (projected 2011): .28%
Swaziland (projected 2011): 1.21%
In those countries the population growth has slowed significantly due to AIDS. It does appear that the growth rates are showing that their population growth is around the 0 mark where they aren't growing but they aren't declining sigificantly.
If you read elsewhere on the Avert website you can learn about efforts to get treatment and prevention into these countries and others where HIV is prevalent. Much progress has been made, but there is a long way to go.
terriDeaner
@
2011 May 26, 3:27pm
How can the world be shrinking when every projection published have 9B people by around 2045-2050? 2B more people or 7X the entire population of the US.
I might be able to rectify this issue if you provided a source... failing that, consider that the age structure of the population (as discussed in the article and one of my comments above) and shifting demographics could probably account for this projection of shortish term apparent population size increase.
No, lifetimes just determine the total population size. If only 2 babies enter for every 2 people, the population will always be steady state, unless lifetimes are infinite.
Actually it's 2.3. Because:
1. In a normal situation male/female newborn ratio is about 52/48. This is caused by diffrent velocity of spermatozoids with male/female genes.
2. There is infant mortality.
« First « Previous Comments 14 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
Came across this article today:
Is The Human Race Doomed? Deutsche Bank On "One The Most Important (Future) Turning Points In History"
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/human-race-doomed-deutsche-bank-one-most-important-future-turning-points-history
Lots of sensationalism in the title, but still... I had no idea that demographics had shifted so strongly throughout the world over the past 60 years.
One useful way to think about trends in birth rates is to look at what is called the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). This is the average number of live births per woman over her lifetime. [...] the replacement level of TFR is a little above 2.3 for the world as a whole.
The TFR for most developed countries now stands well below replacement levels. The OECD average is at around 1.74 but there are countries like Germany and Japan that produce less than 1.4 children per woman. However, the biggest TFR declines in recent years have been in emerging economies. According to the UN's population division, the TFR in China and India were 6.1 and 5.9 respectively in 1950. The ratio has now fallen to 1.8 in China due to the aggressive one-child policy and to 2.6 in India due to a steady change in social attitudes.[Emphasis added]
If this stuff is correct, it indicates that the global human population will eventually level off and start shrinking... and with shrinking comes lots of economic issues... for instance, decreased demand for soylent green, eh?