Primarily, I do it because of the following:
Matthew 26:41
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
I Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
==================================================
So, when you read the following, know that I have scoured the Net, (yes, the Internet) I found all that was relevant to this topic.
This information did not originate online, it originated from books and documentation from governments all over this planet.
It was only placed online AFTER it was collected.
If you have issue with my opinions, views and research methods, just unsubscribe now.
For those who want to know, and want the information, get ready for a long read.
==================================================
Population Growth in Dense U.S. Cities: Short-Term Correction or Long-Term Trend?
Jed Kolko Apr 15, 2014
Has the housing bubble and bust fundamentally changed where Americans want to live? Today, apartment construction in dense cities is booming, and hyper-urban high-rise neighborhoods have both strong home-price growth and population growth. Furthermore, the most recent Census population estimates tell a striking story of a swing back to big, dense cities.
After losing population between 2000 and 2006, Brooklyn, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Boston) all grew between 2010 to 2013, and faster annually than between 1980 and 2000. At first glance, these trends suggest that the housing bubble and bust reversed a decades-long shift toward suburbs and the Sunbelt, harkening an urban resurgence.
But not so fast.
These recent trends look cyclical, not necessarily structural: that is, they reflect the current phase of the housing recovery and represent a correction to the housing bubble, rather than a deeper, underlying "structural" shift in population. The densest counties – like the four mentioned above – fared badly during the bubble but have benefited in the most recent phase of the cycle, as young adults hurt by the recession have begun to get jobs and move out of their parents' homes into urban apartments. Grouping counties by density shows how differently the housing cycle affected different types of places, with the bubble (2000-2006) favoring the lower-density counties and the recovery (2010-2013) favoring denser places:
more here:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2014/04/population-growth-dense-us-cities-short-term-correction-or-long-term-trend/8875/
===================================================
The World's Population Might Not Be About Numbers After All
The Jessica Yu–helmed documentary 'Misconception' challenges what we think we know about fertility and birthrates.
April 15, 2014 By Liz Dwyer
In a world with limited resources, we have to conserve what we have and reduce the number of people on the planet—at least, that’s what most of us believe. But is this true? That’s the provocative question raised by the new documentary Misconception. The film, which premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 20, gives us a personal look at the social and political ramifications of population growth.
Oscar-winning director Jessica Yu (best documentary short subject) began exploring the issue of population growth while making her previous documentary, Last Call at the Oasis, which is about the global water crisis. During every post-viewing question-and-answer period, “we literally had people saying, Your next film has to be about population growth,” says Yu. But instead of beginning with the traditional population-suppression-equals-enough-resources mind-set, Yu says she and her collaborators decided to confront “misconceptions about the role of population in the global picture.”
Misconception challenges our assumptions through the stories of three everyday people: Bao, a Chinese bachelor who’s facing pressure from his family to marry; Denise, a Canadian pro-life activist; and Gladys, a Kampala, Uganda–based journalist who works with abandoned children.
At 29, Bao is under the gun to tie the knot. We see him attending learn-to-date classes and being chastised by relatives who think he’s waited too long. While most Westerners probably can’t imagine the kind of odds he’s facing—China has 30 million fewer women than men—Millennials across the globe are confronting similar challenges.
“They’ve been told you should have someone who’s educated and good-looking, and you shouldn’t have to settle for less,” says Yu. Today's “young people are holding off on marriage because they want more education and more from their career,” she adds. However, “what makes it different in China is that the traditional mind-set from the grandparents and parents is still very strong.”
They’re right to be concerned, says Yu, because “there’s not a huge safety net for the older generation.” In China, “you depend on your offspring and their spouse to take care of you.” If those young people don’t get married, “it’s very scary and disorienting for parents to wonder what’s going to happen to them as they get older.”
From there, the film heads to small-town Morinville, Alberta, to follow Denise, a pro-life activist who travels to New York City for a conference on population at the United Nations. “The conventional notion would be that we’d follow somebody that’s pushing for increased funding for family planning,” says Yu. But telling Denise’s story provides a different perspective on the “forces and opinions and philosophies that are at play in the global conflict over family planning in places with high birthrates.”
more here:
http://www.takepart.com/video/2014/03/17/misconception-documentary-population
==================================================
Famine Is a Feminist Issue
To feed the world, start by teaching girls to read.
By Lisa Palmer
Girls play a clapping game during a weekly education session about breast ironing and rape by Julie Ndjessa at Ndjessa's family home in Douala, Cameroon, in 2013.
In 2013 the United Nations Population Division revised its population projections to show that population could grow even faster than previously anticipated, especially in Africa. Planning ahead for feeding a hot, hungry, teeming planet is both a numbers game and social venture. Calories, climate change, and acres of land are some of the factors on one side of the equation. The 7 billion people in the world, projected to grow to 9.6 billion by 2050, are on the other.
Technically, farmers today grow enough food to feed everyone. But nearly 1 billion people on the planet periodically go without eating, in most cases because the food is too expensive or not available in the right places. That number could get a lot worse.
The food problem isn’t linear. To prevent hunger, farmers would have to double food production by 2050 even though the population isn’t doubling. Income growth is driving half of the increase in the world’s predicted food consumption. As more people in the developing world get wealthier, they adopt diets rich in meat and dairy. And it takes 13 pounds of grain to make a pound of beef.
Can’t we just grow more food? That will be tough. Half of the world’s vegetated land is already devoted to agriculture. Clearing more land, especially tropical forests, would be an environmental disaster.
Crop yields are not improving fast enough. To keep up with projected food demands, farmers will need to produce 2.4 percent more each year. Even with the spread of modern farming methods, yield gains globally are now just 0.9 to 1.6 percent per year.
Production could improve a little bit through more efficient use of current land and improvements in soil health, irrigation, and seed selection. But no quick and easy solutions will meet the projected demands, says Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s crop systems and global change program.
“It’s a mess!” says Ziska, who co-authored a chapter on food security and food production systems in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “In the past, by adding energy in the form of fertilizer, and by adding water, we were able to achieve yield gains,” he says. Fertilizer is not only expensive, it’s also petroleum-based and a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. We also can’t irrigate every field. Lack of access to water in many areas makes it impossible, climate change will worsen droughts, and in some places there isn’t enough energy to fuel the pump. And we’re just starting to see the problems climate change will have on weed growth, pests, and crops’ heat stress.
more here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/feed_the_world/2014/04/educate_women_and_save_babies_how_to_control_population_and_end_hunger.html
===================================================
2 years ago...
cnn - the borderless level playing field, will world population reach 11 billion?
Published on Jul 11, 2013
On World Population Day, Manisha Tank speaks to an expert about our growing and aging population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61BVnWUnHWQ
cnn - world's population reaches 7 billion - population control
Uploaded on Oct 31, 2011
CNN's Don Lemon and Azadeh Ansari go Globe Trekking on the world's population reaching 7 billion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a7DCr0FYB4
cnn - world population to reach 7 billion - population control
Uploaded on Oct 21, 2011
Jeffrey Sachs, Earth Institute director at Columbia University, explains the challenges of the growing global population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEtqPPBsQLY
cnn - soon to be 7 billion people on earth - population control
Uploaded on Oct 21, 2011
CNN's Jim Clancy reports on the upcoming birth of the seven billionth human and what that means for the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc8b_gXx8Q8
======================================================
How could there be 7 billion people on the planet?
World POPClock Projection
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World, projected to 10/29/12 at 05:54 UTC (EST+5) is
2012:
7,048,721,285
Monthly World population figures:
07/01/12 7,023,324,899
08/01/12 7,029,872,203
09/01/12 7,036,419,508
10/01/12 7,042,755,609
11/01/12 7,049,302,914
12/01/12 7,055,639,015
01/01/13 7,062,186,320
02/01/13 7,068,733,624
03/01/13 7,074,647,319
04/01/13 7,081,194,623
05/01/13 7,087,530,725
06/01/13 7,094,078,029
07/01/13 7,100,414,131
Components of Population Change
One birth every 8 seconds
One death every 12 seconds
One international migrant (net) every 38 seconds
Net gain of one person every 15 seconds
Top 10 Most Populous Countries
1. China 1,355,692,576 6. Pakistan 196,174,380
2. India 1,236,344,631 7. Nigeria 177,155,754
3. United States 318,892,103 8. Bangladesh 166,280,712
4. Indonesia 253,609,643 9. Russia 142,470,272
5. Brazil 202,656,788 10. Japan 127,103,388
more here:
http://www.census.gov/population/popclockworld.html
annnnnnnnnnnnd No, we didn't have 7 Billion before 2011:
List of countries by population in 1900
This is a list of countries by population in 1900. Numbers are from the beginning of the year.
World 1,700,000,000
numbers break down and sources, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900
==========
List of countries by population in 2000
This is a list of countries by population in 2000. It is a list of countries in the world by population in the exact beginning of the year 2000.
Because the table contains data only for the 230 nations and territories at the start of 2000, there are no entries for national regions declared later in 2000 or subsequent years.
World 6,063,333,800
1 China 1,242,612,226
2 India 1,040,000,000[1]
sources, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_2000
==========
List of countries by population in 2010
This is a list of sovereign states and other territories by population, with population figures estimated for 2010 (rounded to the nearest 1,000). The figures are estimates for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) "2010 annual statistics", List the more than 100,000 of population in country and territory.
The list includes all sovereign states and dependent territories recognized by the United Nations plus the territory under the effective control of the Republic of China (Taiwan). For a graphical version of this list, see List of countries by population (graphical).
World 6,843,522,711
1 People's Republic of China (Mainland) 1,339,724,852
2 India 1,182,105,000[1]
sources, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_2010
=================================================
How Do You Count 7 Billion People?
Natlie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer | August 19, 2011 11:58am ET
The United Nations Population Division (UNPD), which keeps track of the world population, projects that the world's human population will hit 7 billion on Halloween Day 2011. Admittedly, that is just an estimate: There's no way to know exactly how many people are alive at any given moment, and the true date that humanity's ranks will surpass 7 billion could come in the weeks or months before or after Oct. 31. Nonetheless, the UN's guess is the best there is.
How do they make it? By synthesizing a mind-boggling array of data.
According to a chief analyst in the UNPD, its population estimate relies on fertility, mortality and migration information gathered by government censuses, independent demographic and health surveys, vital registers (official birth and death records), the World Health Organization, the UN High Commission on Refugees, and academic studies. UN analysts revise their country and world population curves every five years to account for any new data gathered by those entities since their last revision; they completed the current population projections earlier this year.
Censuses — population statistics gathered periodically by governments — only go so far. "The uncertainty in census data is very high: in the range of 2 to 3 percent in most countries," the UN analyst, who asked not be named, told Life's Little Mysteries. That range might not sound very large, but for a country like China, which has a population of 1 billion, that means a 40-to-60-million-person error.
"In other countries, census data is very limited. Either there hasn't been a census for decades, or the census that has been taken is disputed," the analyst said. In many war-torn areas of the world, for example, it's logistically impossible to accurately count people. Some gaps in census data pertaining to developing countries get filled in by independent organizations such as Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), a nonprofit based in the United States, but in many countries, uncertainty remains.
Furthermore, if you're trying to predict the population of a given country at some future time — even if that future time is just the publication date of your report — you obviously need to know the fertility, mortality and migration rates in the country. Are people having lots of kids or not? Are they dying young? Are they going elsewhere?
The DHS, as well as UNICEF, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Commission on Refugees all contribute to gathering information about fertility, infant and adult mortality rates and migration rates around the world.
"We also use data collected by WHO concerning HIV/AIDS prevalence. This is because, in a number of countries, you cannot estimate mortality independent of the AIDS epidemic," the UN Population Division analyst said.
These various data sources enable the UN Population Division to establish the growth rates of each age bracket in each country, and determine the overall upward trend in the world population over time. (It extends the curves all the way to the year 2100.) "You typically get a data cloud — a range of data points — rather than a simple line, and it's very complicated to come up with estimates and put a line through this data cloud." In short, who knows what the future holds? The UN picks a single projection from among a huge range of possibilities.
UN statistics show that the population will reach 10 billion by 2100, if worldwide fertility converges to "replacement level" by that time — if people have only enough children to replace themselves.
"Many people are not aware that, with our projections, we assume that people change their reproductive behavior. We assume that people in those countries where fertility is still very high will change and have significantly less children," the analyst explained. "But this is an assumption based on experience in other countries; this is by no means guaranteed. It could be that people don't want to reduce their fertility for some reason. If the fertility would not decline in the world, if it would stay at the same level as 2010, we would have 27 billion people in 2100."
Africa, not Asia, is the biggest concern for population analysts, he said. "Essentially all population growth between now and the end of the century is happening in Africa. It's not Asia; in fact, fertility in China is below the replacement level. It's Africa, because there are many countries that have very high fertility. There are many young people there, so it's a very 'high momentum' population."
http://www.livescience.com/15656-counting-world-population.html
=================================================
Human population control
Population control may use one or more of the following practices although there are other methods as well:
- Contraception
- Abstinence
- Reducing infant mortality so that parents do not increase their family size to ensure at least some survive to adulthood.[3]
- Abortion
- Improving status of women causing departure from traditional sexual division of labour.
- Emigration
- Immigration reduction
- Sterilization
- Legislation
sources and more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
==========
List of countries by population
This is a list of independent countries and inhabited dependent territories—based on the ISO standard ISO 3166-1—by population. Also given in percent is each country's population compared to the population of the world, which according to the United States Census Bureau population clock is estimated at 7.157 billion.[1]
According to a separate estimate by the United Nations, world population exceeded 7 billion in October 2011.[2][3][4]
sources here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
===================================================
It Is Absurd To Suggest That the World Population Could Decline Enough for Humans To Go Extinct
By John Seager | Posted Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, at 10:31 AM ET
There are lots of things worth worrying about. Human extinction is not one of them.
Sure, an asteroid could wipe us out a la Stegosaurus. We could do ourselves in via some newfangled (or newly freed) virus. But humans going the way of the dodo through failure to breed? It ain’t gonna happen.
But that seems to be what keeps writer Jeff Wise up at night. In a Jan. 9 piece in Slate titled “About That Overpopulation Problem,” Wise includes this terror-inducing line: “And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity.”
Wise writes that human population hit 7 billion people in 2012. “It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown,” he wrote.
Except he’s wrong. We hit 6 billion in 1999 and 7 billion in 2011—the same number of years it took to grow from 5 billion to 6 billion, even in the midst of a global recession of the type that tends to reduce births. And this rate of growth is the human reproduction equivalent of a supersonic jet. In fact, it took 130 years to increase our human population from 1 billion to 2 billion.
Not satisfied with simple math errors, Wise moves on to cherry-picking data.
“Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s,” he writes.
Or not. The number Wise cites comes from the United Nations, which has three projections for future fertility. The one Wise cites is the low variant, which most demographers laugh at. In the more commonly cited medium variant, sub-Saharan Africa’s fertility rate in 2070 would remain at 2.43 births per woman—comfortably above replacement rate. And many demographers think even that rate is unrealistically low.
more here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/11/why_the_world_population_will_not_decline.html
==================================================
The world’s middle class will number 5 billion by 2030
By Lily Kuo — January 14, 2013
Millions of newly affluent people in emerging economies are reshaping and resizing the global middle class. The world’s middle class will swell from 2 billion to almost 5 billion by 2030, with most of that growth coming from developing countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The world population in 2030 is expected to be about 8 billion.
The OECD defines “middle class” as making $10 to $100 a day, adjusted for the purchasing power of each currency. Today, people in developing countries make up almost 30% of the world’s consumer spending, up from 18% a decade ago as they become middle class. This change, what the US National Intelligence Council called a ”tectonic shift,” is one the most important trends for the next several decades.
For one, growth of both multinationals and the global economy will depend more and more on these emerging market consumers, especially in Asia. They are spending more on basic necessities like homes and food, but also extras such as meat, mobile phones, and air conditioners. Global middle-class spending should rise from $21 trillion today to $51 trillion in 2030.
more here:
http://qz.com/43411/the-worlds-middle-class-will-number-5-billion-by-2030/
source documents:
An emerging middle class
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3681/An_emerging_middle_class.html
THE BATTLE FOR THE EMERGING MIDDLE CLASS
http://www.jana.com/blog/the-battle-for-the-emerging-middle-class/
2030: The “Perfect Storm” Scenario
http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/reports/The_Perfect_Storm_Scenario_for_2030.pdf
===================================================
MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030
By Rebecca BoylePosted 04.05.2012 at 3:30 pm
Forty years after its initial publication, a study called The Limits to Growth is looking depressingly prescient. Commissioned by an international think tank called the Club of Rome, the 1972 report found that if civilization continued on its path toward increasing consumption, the global economy would collapse by 2030. Population losses would ensue, and things would generally fall apart.
The study was — and remains — nothing if not controversial, with economists doubting its predictions and decrying the notion of imposing limits on economic growth. Australian researcher Graham Turner has examined its assumptions in great detail during the past several years, and apparently his latest research falls in line with the report’s predictions, according to Smithsonian Magazine. The world is on track for disaster, the magazine says.
The study, initially completed at MIT, relied on several computer models of economic trends and estimated that if things didn’t change much, and humans continued to consume natural resources apace, the world would run out at some point. Oil will peak (some argue it has) before dropping down the other side of the bell curve, yet demand for food and services would only continue to rise. Turner says real-world data from 1970 to 2000 tracks with the study’s draconian predictions: “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here. We are not on a sustainable trajectory,” he tells Smithsonian.
Is this impossible to fix? No, according to both Turner and the original study. If governments enact stricter policies and technologies can be improved to reduce our environmental footprint, economic growth doesn’t have to become a market white dwarf, marching toward inevitable implosion. But just how to do that is another thing entirely.
here:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-04/new-research-tracks-40-year-old-prediction-world-economy-will-collapse-2030
source documents:
Looking Back on the Limits of Growth
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html#
MIT 2030: Concerns for the Future
November / December 2011
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/242/simha1.html
MIT 2030 is based on specific objectives and informs a wide range of projects.
http://web.mit.edu/mit2030/
==================================================
TECH | 1/03/2013 @ 7:49AM |383 views
Global Trends 2030 With America At The Center
The National Intelligence Council commissioned a report for upcoming global trends out to the year 2030. This detailed work has dozens of in-depth blog posts, by experts in their fields. It is a US-centric report because the goal of it is to figure out what happens to the US as changes occur around the world.
It highlights many technological advances and trends, such as 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing that includes “bioprinting” arteries and organs. Smart Cities offer a healthier and more prosperous place to live. Sensors, web cams, smartphones all hook into the smart city system. Think smart parking meters that ping your phone when you drive near an open space.
The report was publicly released in December, and it covers a lot of ground in 160 pages. It predicts a rising global middle class, urban density increases, 50 percent growth in demand for food, water and energy, among many other results. Many of them will seem familiar, but the many authors lay out compelling arguments. Here are just a handful of the post titles:
- Overview: What Fate for Liberal Order in a Post-Western World?
- The World in 2030: Are we on the path to convergence or divergence?
- The Rise of the Rest; Decline of the West?
- The Rise of the Rest and the Return of Spheres of Influence
- To Sustain a U.S.-Led Liberal Order, Incorporate the Global Swing States
- From the Great Divergence in Global Affairs to the Great Convergence: Can America Adapt? A View from Australia
- Down But Not Out: Reports of the West’s Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
- China’s Challenge to the Liberal Order, India’s Attraction to It, and the Possibilities for Western Revitalization in Light of the Global Embrace of Democratic Norms
- “India Wants to Modify the Present World Order But Never to Overthrow It”
- The Future of American Power = The Future of Liberal Order?
more here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2013/01/03/global-trends-2030-with-america-at-the-center/
source documents:
GLOBAL TRENDS 2030: ALTERNATIVE WORLDS
a publication of the National Intelligence Council
http://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf
GT2030 Blog Posts
http://gt2030.com/
==================================================
Census Bureau Links Poverty With Out-of-Wedlock Births
D.C. had the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births in 2011, Utah the lowest.
By Steven Nelson May 6, 2013
Research released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey says states with a higher percentage of out-of-wedlock births in 2011 tended to have a higher incidence of poverty.
The American Community Survey found that 36 percent of the 4.1 million women who gave birth in the U.S. that year were unmarried, up from 31 percent in 2005.
Utah had the nation's lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2011, at 14.7 percent, followed by New Hampshire at 20 percent. The District of Columbia had the highest rate, at 50.8 percent, followed closely by Louisiana at 48.7 percent, Mississippi at 48.1 percent and New Mexico at 47.6 percent.
"The increased share of unmarried recent mothers is one measure of the nation's changing family structure," report co-author Rose Kreider said. "Non-marital fertility has been climbing steadily since the 1940s and has risen even more markedly in recent years."
There was a .6 Pearson's correlation between state-level poverty and the percentage of women reporting out-wedlock births, according to the report. A correlation of 0 would suggest no relationship between the two, while correlation values of 1 or -1 would suggest a strong correlation.
Coupling statistics for the percentage of women without a high school degree in a state and the state's median income "explains about 67 percent" of out-of-wedlock births, according to the report. The precise correlation between solely educational attainment and out-of-wedlock births was not included in the report.
By educational attainment, 57 percent of women without a high school degree were unmarried when they gave birth, compared to 8.8 percent of women with a bachelor's degree or more. The percentages for women with just a high school degree and some college fell between the two.
Nationwide, African-American women reported the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 67.8 percent. American Indian or Alaska Native women reported a 64 percent rate, while Hispanics reported 43 percent and non-Hispanic whites reported 26 percent. Asian-Americans reported the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births, at 11.3 percent.
Data revealed a significant link between income and out-of-wedlock births. Of women making less than $10,000 who gave birth in the previous year, 68.9 percent were not married. That statistic dropped progressively going up the household income ladder, with a 9 percent rate for households earning more than $200,000 a year.
Younger women who gave birth were also more likely not to be married. Of new mothers between the ages of 15 and 19, 86.1 percent were unmarried, compared to 61.5 percent of women ages 20 to 24 and 31.9 percent of women ages 25 to 29. The percentage dipped into the teens for women in their 30s and was slightly higher for older women.
The report pulls from the Census Bureau's poverty count, which may overestimate the poverty rate by overlooking cohabiting couples. According to last week's report, up to 40 percent of all children will live in a cohabiting household by age 12. A 1998 study by the University of Michigan - which is posted on the Census Bureau's website - calculated a possible four percent overestimate of the national poverty rate in the 1990 Census by not treating cohabitators who pool resources as family units.
more here:
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/06/census-bureau-links-poverty-with-out-of-wedlock-births
=============
High birthrate threatens to trap Africa in cycle of poverty
Xan Rice
Guardian Weekly, Thursday 31 August 2006
There are 27.7 million people in Uganda. But by 2025 the population will almost double to 56 million, close to that of Britain, which has a similar land mass. In 44 years its population will have grown by nearly as much as China's.
"You look at these numbers and think 'that's impossible'," said Carl Haub, senior demographer at the US-based Population Reference Bureau, whose latest global projections show Uganda as the fastest-growing country in the world. Midway through the 21st century, if current birthrates persist, Uganda will be the world's 12th most populous country with 130 million people - more than Russia or Japan.
Startling as they are, the projections are feasible, and a glance at some of the variables shows why. A typical Ugandan woman gives birth to seven children - an extraordinarily high fertility rate that has remained largely unchanged for more than 30 years. Half the population is under 15, and will soon move into childbearing age. Only one in five married women has access to contraception.
Taken together, the factors point to a population explosion that has demographers and family planning experts warning that efforts to cut poverty are doomed unless urgent measures are taken.
And not just in Uganda. Across much of sub-Saharan Africa the population is expanding so quickly that the planet's demographic map is changing.
In the rest of world, including developing nations in Asia and South America, fertility rates have steadily declined to an average of 2.3 children to each mother. Most will experience only modest population growth in coming decades. Some countries, particularly in eastern Europe, will see their numbers decline.
But by 2050 Chad, Mali, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Burundi and Malawi - all among the poorest nations in the world - are projected to triple in size. Nigeria will have become the world's fourth-biggest country. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia will have vaulted into the top 10 for the first time. Nearly one in four of the world's population will come from Africa - up from one in seven today.
"What's happening is alarming and depressing," said Jotham Musinguzi, director of the population secretariat in Uganda's ministry of finance, pointing out the clear correlation between high fertility levels and poverty. "Are we really going to be able to give these extra people jobs, homes, healthcare and education?"
Development may not be the only casualty of the population boom. With increased competition for scarce resources such as land, conflict is likely to increase. Consequences will be felt far beyond Africa: pressure to migrate abroad - already great - can only grow, experts say.
It is not yet a lost cause. Experience has shown that with strong political will population growth can be tackled in Africa. Southern Africa's population is expected to remain stable thanks to sustained efforts to cut fertility rates, although Aids-related deaths are also a factor. In 1978 Uganda's neighbour Kenya had the world's highest fertility rate - more than eight children per mother. The government made family planning a national priority and by the mid-1990s the figure had dropped to below five.
But a number of African leaders, including Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, believe that their countries are underpopulated, and that a bigger internal market and workforce will boost their economic prospects. In a speech to MPs in July Mr Museveni said: "I am not one of those worried about the 'population explosion'. This is a great resource."
more here:
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/01/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1
=============
Demography and inequality
Aug 2nd 2012, 15:25 by J.P.
A longer-than-usual post today. At the urging of Wendy Baldwin and Marlene Lee of the Population Reference Bureau (a think-tank in Washington DC whose website is here), I have been reading new and recent studies exploring the link between demographic change and inequality. The connections are strong, and often surprising. This week's Free Exchange in the print edition looks at the conclusions. This is a slightly expanded version of that article:
WHEN people respond to lower mortality rates by having smaller families, economies change fundamentally, usually for the better. As the fertility rate falls, the number of working-age adults creeps up relative to the rest of the population, laying the foundation for the so-called “demographic dividend”. With fewer children, parents invest more in each child’s education, increasing skills and human capital. People tend to save more for their retirement, so more is available for investment. And women move into paid employment, boosting the size of the overall workforce. All this is good for growth and income. A recent study by Quamrul Ashraf, David Weil and Joshua Wilde estimated that a decrease in Nigeria’s fertility rate by one child per woman would boost GDP per head by 13% over 20 years, with almost all the gains coming from the “dependency effect” of there being fewer children to look after.
But not every result of lower fertility is so beneficial and a new study by David Bloom, David Canning, Gunther Fink and Jocelyn Finlay at the Harvard School of Public Health link to come identifies an unexpected effect: in the short term, lower fertility can lead to higher inequality.
It is no surprise that fertility and wealth should be connected. Countries with the highest fertility rates (such as Niger, Mali and Chad, where women can expect to have six or seven children in their lifetimes) are also among the poorest. And, with some significant exceptions (such as China), low-fertility countries tend to be rich. And that pattern is replicated within countries. As a general rule, the poor tend to have larger families.
more here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/08/fertility-decline-demographic-dividend-poverty-and-inequality
==================================================
Everyone knows the poorest of us are having sex like rabbits.
I'm sure you know of at least one family that is low-income has a lot of children. (yeah, I said it.)
So, after all of that, are the numbers non-sense?
No
The only lie they have told concerning the population is that the earth cannot handle it.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/
We know that is a lie, because the entire population of human-kind will be resurrected.
^_^
Watch and understand.
They need everyone, before they kill everyone:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.