Historical demographics

we need to get this reversal going in developing countries asap. 10 billion people is absolutely disgusting. what kind of shithole degraded trash heap of a planet that will be.

Okay?

>Supposedly

Literally unproven bullshit suppositions.

Demographers in the 60's and 70's promised us that high birthrates would continue.

Industrialization, democracy. Children are an economic burden, whilst in the past they were an economic necessity. You needed children to work your fields with you and to take over and care for you when you were sick/too-old/crippled. Children functioned as workers and retirement.

In an industrial world with welfare and modern retirement, children are only a net negative for the wallet. Which is only why the wealthy and the poor (bad decisions, lack of education) are the only ones who get a lot of children. And of course societal reasons, such as religion. Laestadians are the most fertile group of people in Europe.

I think there is a correlation between fertility rates and how much of the population lives under subsistence farming.

How about China?

Or Korea?

Or Singapore?

Or Brazil?

Uruguay?

Costa Rica?

Puerto Rico?

kids are shits.

So are relationships

>What caused fertility rates to fall below replacement level?

This chart doesn't say that.

speak for yourself

The chart and question do not have to correlate if the FUCKING LINK does.!

okay what?, China is the exception because of that reason, but the correlation stands for the rest, better quality of life/expectancy, opportunities etc. that offer modern urban societies is often related to low fertility

>china
the state dictated how many kids you should have
>singapore
irrelevant.

This chart doesn't say that birthrates will fall below sustainable levels, what it says is that huge numbers of people are going to start living past 65. It has more to do with an increase in the overall healthiness of the population, increasing resistance to disease and improving diets and lifestyles which will prompt people to live well into their 80's, 90's and beyond.

Most countries facing declining birthrates are already taking steps to mitigate this phenomenon and there is no reason to believe that it will be an irreversible decline.

[citation needed]

>This chart doesn't say that birthrates will fall below sustainable levels

This chart doesn't say a lot of things, but based upon current demographics, it implies far more.

>it has more to do with average lifespan
[citation needed]

>Most countries facing declining birthrates are already taking steps to mitigate this phenomenon
And failing.
>and there is no reason to believe that it will be an irreversible decline
Except the fact it has continued unabated in many countries for 30+ years now.

>[citation needed]
nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html
geography.hunter.cuny.edu/tbw/ncc/Notes/Chapter6.pop/chapter.6.what.factors.affect.death.rates.outline.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_rates_in_the_20th_century

Here's the citation for the picture: ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html

None of your sources state "it (being the increase in over 65 people) has more to do with the average lifespan than falling birthrates".

Each one specifically addressing the point that people are living much longer than they used to, and are no longer dying in droves by things as simple as an infection or the flu.

>The rapid growth of the world's population over the past 100 years is not the result of a rise in the crude birth rate. Instead, it has been caused largely by a decline in crude death rates, especially in developing countries.

It's literally the first sentence of the second citation.

Your fucking claim

>it has more to do with average lifespan
"it" being
>This chart doesn't say that birthrates will fall below sustainable levels, what it says is that huge numbers of people are going to start living past 65.

I'm asking for a citation showing that longer lifespans "has more to with" more
elderly than young in the future.

Not this shit
>The rapid growth of the world's population over the past 100 years is not the result of a rise in the crude birth rate. Instead, it has been caused largely by a decline in crude death rates, especially in developing countries.

>Your fucking claim
>>it has more to do with average lifespan
more people are living longer, so they constitute a larger percentage of the population. Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

>I'm asking for a citation showing that longer lifespans "has more to with" more elderly than young in the future.
Are you drunk or something? Look a little closer at the chart I posted, it specifically shows how lifespans are going to continue increasing in the time span outlined in that chart.

There are places in the world which are doing just fine for birthrates: particularly Africa, India, and the United States. There's only about a 23% chance that population growth will experience a permanent, long term decline which makes it a pressing concern, but not an unsolvable one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
>The population of the more developed regions is slated to remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion, as international migrations from high-growth regions compensate the fertility deficit of richer countries.

If there are more old people(bc they don't die), doesn't that make the average lifespan longer?

If you don't even try to refute me your comment is fucking pointless, but here some spoonfed anyway. uwaterloo.ca/waterloo-research-institute-in-insurance-securities-and-quantitative-finance/sites/ca.waterloo-research-institute-in-insurance-securities-and-quantitative-finance/files/uploads/files/03-02.pdf

>Evidence gathered throughout the world indicates that fertility declines as a country's population becomes more urban and as women become more highly educated
>Moreover, significant differences in fertility are usually found between women in urban and rural areas. These differences reflect fertility preferences as well as differential access to family planning

There are tons of factors of course, but the transition from a traditional rural society to modern urban society is a big one that conditions other factors.

shit, meant to reply

>more people are living longer, so they constitute a larger percentage of the population. Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

It's not. How is this evidence that longer lifespans have MORE TO DO with the trend in OP?

It is both birth and death rates that form demographics. You only point to death rates.

>Are you drunk or something? Look a little closer at the chart I posted, it specifically shows how lifespans are going to continue increasing in the time span outlined in that chart.

Once again, how is this relevant to the claim I asked a citation for hereThe whole rest of your post is meaningless. You seem to think I am arguing about OP, and not over the citation I asked for.

Explain China

Yes, and are you a fucking retard who thinks babies are not born as well?

There are two sides to the equation.

Dumbass over here thinks that it has MORE TO DO with lifespans lengthening (lower death rates) than birth rates falling.

We already did many posts before, are you drunk, retarded or both? State forces you to have 1 kid (o 2 at most in rural areas).

>It's not. How is this evidence that longer lifespans have MORE TO DO with the trend in OP?
Because of this statement right here
>>The population of the more developed regions is slated to remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion, as international migrations from high-growth regions compensate the fertility deficit of richer countries.
Birthrates aren't "falling", they've stabilized at somewhat below the sustainable rate. This is compensated by migration from high growth areas of the world, thus stabilizing the birthrates of the developed world
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth
Go ahead, read it.

>Dumbass over here thinks that it has MORE TO DO with lifespans lengthening (lower death rates) than birth rates falling.
Go to bed, drunkie

It depends on which is a greater delta: the increase in number of people living longer or the decrease in birthrates.

>Because of this statement right here

Are you retarded?

This statement in no way argues or implies that it has MORE TO DO with birthrates than deathrates.

Jesus christ can you address my point??

>Birthrates aren't "falling
[citation needed]

Your fucking source in no way shows that.

This user explains my point

>This statement in no way argues or implies that it has MORE TO DO with birthrates than deathrates.
That's not even my argument. My argument is that OP's chart shows that there will eventually be more elderly folks than children, and that has more to do with people living longer than it does with the number of babies that people are having

>[citation needed]
Pic related. Birthrates ebb and flow but have remained more or less stable since the 1970's. Ergo, population growth has more to do with two things:
A: immigration
B: people living longer