I don't know if you've had the chance to watch Birthgap - Childless World by Stephen Shaw. I remember you acknowledged my comment on your previous article. Shaw asserts that the percentage of women having one, two, three, or four or more children has not changed. The dramatic drop in birthrates globally is a result of what he calls the unintentionally childless. Women (and men) who put education and career ahead of family and, basically, ran out of time. I think we've all been saturated with scary messages about the so-called population bomb for decades, which I suspect is another factor. Shaw attributes the change to financial shocks that began in the 70s. I'm not convinced. People had children during and after the great wars of the 20th century. I think we were all targeted by the psyop and a fantasy notion that women could have babies well into their late 30s and even 40s with just a little help. It isn't true, and many women who thought they'd someday be mothers found out the hard way.
Shaw's data also shows dramatic declines in birth rates in third world countries. The US may benefit from immigration for a time; but, eventually, there will be no people in those countries to emigrate. The only way to prevent the population collapse is to increase birth rates, but the world is about to become much smaller. Perhaps that was their aim (whoever they are).
I seriously would pay dowries for my children instead of college. If it meant a good spouse for my kids (and woukd result in grandkids) I would do it in a heartbeat....i
On the other hand, if half the population of the US just evaporated, we'd be back at population levels from... what? the '50s? Was the country a desert wasteland then?
I'm not suggesting it's a good idea or a goal to shoot for, just... pretty sure we've had a functional civilization at much lower numbers, in living memory. I expect it'd be a bumpy ride on the way down, but hey, we'd finally be able to afford a house... (/cynicism)
in 1950, ~50% of the population was under 30. My projection for 2100 is that under 30 population would be ~27%.... very different futures in those two scenarios.
True enough. Beyond birthrate numbers, though, since we also seem to be looking at a rising "excess" death rate where the biggest increases percent-wise are in the young, but the biggest increases numbers-wise are in the old... we might be getting clubbed from both ends of the distribution.
Even a scenario where most of the decline was in the aged, would not actually be good. Loss of expertise alone could be catastrophic.
Very interesting, I think your right on target given the declining birth rates etc well prior to 2021, current and previous global government policies on immigration (despite logical public outcry), education, medicine, industries across the board, and tech innovations.
Then also especially factor in the differences in side effects from the shots given from 2021. But I do think your projected more females than males , may be slightly skewed- there appears to be a higher rate of deaths over all from the shots, in females, but a higher rate of "sudden deaths" in males. As in the males die sooner after shots, while the women take longer, but overall more die.😐🤔🤐
I think your right on target with this and so I think you will get zero attention, or not serious attention, because they will claim to many variables to influence and track (despite us having big data systems analysis and AI to do it!🤨🤷♀️🤦♀️). When you zoom out on all the variables, the pattern is there though.😐😐🤦♀️ #keepemcoming #numerouno #wearemany #wearememory #wewillnotforgive #getlocalised
I don't know if you've had the chance to watch Birthgap - Childless World by Stephen Shaw. I remember you acknowledged my comment on your previous article. Shaw asserts that the percentage of women having one, two, three, or four or more children has not changed. The dramatic drop in birthrates globally is a result of what he calls the unintentionally childless. Women (and men) who put education and career ahead of family and, basically, ran out of time. I think we've all been saturated with scary messages about the so-called population bomb for decades, which I suspect is another factor. Shaw attributes the change to financial shocks that began in the 70s. I'm not convinced. People had children during and after the great wars of the 20th century. I think we were all targeted by the psyop and a fantasy notion that women could have babies well into their late 30s and even 40s with just a little help. It isn't true, and many women who thought they'd someday be mothers found out the hard way.
Shaw's data also shows dramatic declines in birth rates in third world countries. The US may benefit from immigration for a time; but, eventually, there will be no people in those countries to emigrate. The only way to prevent the population collapse is to increase birth rates, but the world is about to become much smaller. Perhaps that was their aim (whoever they are).
https://www.birthgap.org/spaces/9045429/page
Haven't watched yet, but on my list. Thanks for the summary ;)
At least I won't have to yell at the kids to get off my lawn?
You will, just in Spanish.
😆 😅 😂 🤣
I seriously would pay dowries for my children instead of college. If it meant a good spouse for my kids (and woukd result in grandkids) I would do it in a heartbeat....i
Guess I am ahead of the curve, female, old and lonely now! Sometimes it's not good to be first...
On the other hand, if half the population of the US just evaporated, we'd be back at population levels from... what? the '50s? Was the country a desert wasteland then?
I'm not suggesting it's a good idea or a goal to shoot for, just... pretty sure we've had a functional civilization at much lower numbers, in living memory. I expect it'd be a bumpy ride on the way down, but hey, we'd finally be able to afford a house... (/cynicism)
in 1950, ~50% of the population was under 30. My projection for 2100 is that under 30 population would be ~27%.... very different futures in those two scenarios.
True enough. Beyond birthrate numbers, though, since we also seem to be looking at a rising "excess" death rate where the biggest increases percent-wise are in the young, but the biggest increases numbers-wise are in the old... we might be getting clubbed from both ends of the distribution.
Even a scenario where most of the decline was in the aged, would not actually be good. Loss of expertise alone could be catastrophic.
Very interesting, I think your right on target given the declining birth rates etc well prior to 2021, current and previous global government policies on immigration (despite logical public outcry), education, medicine, industries across the board, and tech innovations.
Then also especially factor in the differences in side effects from the shots given from 2021. But I do think your projected more females than males , may be slightly skewed- there appears to be a higher rate of deaths over all from the shots, in females, but a higher rate of "sudden deaths" in males. As in the males die sooner after shots, while the women take longer, but overall more die.😐🤔🤐
I think your right on target with this and so I think you will get zero attention, or not serious attention, because they will claim to many variables to influence and track (despite us having big data systems analysis and AI to do it!🤨🤷♀️🤦♀️). When you zoom out on all the variables, the pattern is there though.😐😐🤦♀️ #keepemcoming #numerouno #wearemany #wearememory #wewillnotforgive #getlocalised