Ideal family size

[Ward Fowler]

I recently read that China was now encouraging urban couples ro have a second child but only if both parents are themselves an only child. This is because China is worried about who will look after the elderly.

You raise a very good point about the pyramid scheme that funds pensions and retirement plans (including social security). It's inevitable that another system will have to be put into place. What it is, I have no idea. But with a shrinking population in the western world, it's only a matter of time.

 

[sidious618]

With all these elderly does this mean that I will be yelling at old people to get off of my lawn?

 

[Ward Fowler]

With all these elderly does this mean that I will be yelling at old people to get off of my lawn?

Yep. They'll be playing "kick the can".

 

[trampledamage]

Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.

I think the Kennedy clan can well afford to feed all of their children.

Looks like somebody needs to brush up on their Meaning of Life quotes...

I admit, if it isn't accompanied by Eric Idle whistling, a lot of Monty Python passes me by.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I'll get it started. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate.

 

[Mallory]

Are any of you concerned that, because of the current low birth rate, there will not be enough doctors, nurses and other professionals to look after the population when you are older? Not enough taxpayers to keep society functioning?

To be honest, it's not something I worry about at all. It's not likely to affect me in my lifetime. The US fertility rate is still above 2 and with immigration the population continues to rise. My children, on the other hand, are going to face some tough decisions in thirty or forty years.

 

[Michael Chris]

I don't think there is an average ideal size. The ideal size is what the parents want and can support.

The ideal size should be what the world can cope with.

I think the world can cope with a hell of a lot more people.

 

[auntiehill]

^If you lived in India or China, you might feel differently about that.

 

[Michael Chris]

^If you lived in India or China, you might feel differently about that.

India or China are part of the world, yes, but they are not the world. There's a lot more to the world than India and China.

 

[Pegaritaville]

However, even though a lower fertility rate will benefit man in the long run and the world will be a much more desirable place to live once the ideal population is reached, we cannot overlook all the social problems a declining population it will cause in the short term (by short term I mean the next 50-80 years).

In the short term, immigration would be the solution for an idividual nation, but for the planet overall, it's not much of a solution. A declining population may cause some social and economic problems in the short term, but I don't think it's as dire as some would make it out to be. Don't underestimate the ability of people to adapt. As long as it's a gradual change and not a major upheaval, I think societies can adjust.

I have a bit of a problem with nations that directly or indirectly (as is the case in the U.S.) encourage couples to have more children. I wouldn't say China's draconian measures to limit population is the answer (although in that case, I do understand their reasoning), but I feel that encouraging population growth is both selfish and short-sighted.

As an aside, you stated that the ideal maximum population for Australia would be 8 million: I remember reading somewhere that Australia- despite having a very low population density- was considered by some to be overpopulated (in regards to the environment's ability to support the people). That idea hadn't even crossed my mind, but it should have.

 

[Miss Chicken]

There are three main reasons why Australia cannot support a large population despite its size. There are

1) Soils - Australia has some of the oldest and poorest soils in the world. This is because there has been very little glaciation or volvanic activity in Australia and therefore no renewal of the soils.

2) Lack of rainfall - much of Australia is arid or semi-arid

3) Salination - because of Australia's topography most rivers do not empty into the sea. As a result salt has accumulated just under the water table. If such lands are watered the salt rises and the land is poisoned.

Even in Tasmania, where salinity is not a problem, many soils are leeched because of heavy rainfall (especially on Tasmania's West Coast). The most fertile lands are along the Derwent and Huon Rivers and in the Midlands but Tasmania is small in area and these regions are only a fraction of Tasmania's size. Tasmania might be able to feed its current population (500,000), or even double its population but I am not sure how much more than that it could manage.

 

[John Picard]

I think the Kennedy clan can well afford to feed all of their children.

Looks like somebody needs to brush up on their Meaning of Life quotes...

I admit, if it isn't accompanied by Eric Idle whistling, a lot of Monty Python passes me by.

Better luck next time

 

[Candlelight]

There are three main reasons why Australia cannot support a large population despite its size. There are

1) Soils - Australia has some of the oldest and poorest soils in the world. This is because there has been very little glaciation or volvanic activity in Australia and therefore no renewal of the soils.

2) Lack of rainfall - much of Australia is arid or semi-arid

3) Salination - because of Australia's topography most rivers do not empty into the sea. As a result salt has accumulated just under the water table. If such lands are watered the salt rises and the land is poisoned.

I often thought about large areas like the outback where sea water is pumped in from the oceans and hundreds (thousands?) of desalination plants are set up to create fresh water, and then simply 'flood' the outback. Not a quick solution but over several decades (well more like centuries) you might see useable land pop up.

Also might prep us for terraforming other planets.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Flooding/watering the desert would only bring the underlying salt to the surface and poison the land. Because there is millions of years of salt just under the regular water table the desert/semi-arid regions cannot be made fertile.

 

[John Picard]

There are three main reasons why Australia cannot support a large population despite its size. There are

1) Soils - Australia has some of the oldest and poorest soils in the world. This is because there has been very little glaciation or volvanic activity in Australia and therefore no renewal of the soils.

2) Lack of rainfall - much of Australia is arid or semi-arid

3) Salination - because of Australia's topography most rivers do not empty into the sea. As a result salt has accumulated just under the water table. If such lands are watered the salt rises and the land is poisoned.

I often thought about large areas like the outback where sea water is pumped in from the oceans and hundreds (thousands?) of desalination plants are set up to create fresh water, and then simply 'flood' the outback. Not a quick solution but over several decades (well more like centuries) you might see useable land pop up.

Also might prep us for terraforming other planets.

How do you propose to pay for that?

 

[Hoser]

Credit cards.