 |
| |
|
|
Datajack Franit
|
 |
Bologna
Aug 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
Well, let's put it down in a simple and short. This decline wasn't caused by the fertility rate fall ONLY. This was one of the main causes, but of course, a very important one. The main cause is officially called barbarian invasions, which are actually mostly mere migrations of non-romans coming from everywhere around the roman border, sometimes causing huge troubles in the previously roman provinces, where the citizens calling themselves "romans" suddendly became just a mere minorance and often fled, instead of becoming members of a new society.
The crash of the roman institutions such as government and military became more visible as the "roman" masses were hugely targeted by taxes, that caused an important movement of people from the cities to the countryside, where these peasants would eventually become servants of land owners, and setting the basis for feudalism, aka slavery of the peasants to the wealthy land-owners and the consitution of large regions dominated by these landlords, that would eventually form the noble-class of the Middle Ages.
Such "institutions" became more important as quality of life in the roman cities started to collapse also from the constant raids of barbarians from the East, which the roman army wasn't any longer able to push back. Christianity also had a huge role in the fall of the Roman Empire, as the expansion of the roman provinces stopped and the flow of slaves from the captured lands disappeared quickly, also because slavery wasn't a nice thing to do for a converted christian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually there is, for the reason I stated in my first post. Since it's a relatively new trend, it hasn't had time to fully manifest itself. |
And what is that trend?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Datajack Franit
You forgot one thing that is called "barbarian invasions" in italian textbooks, and "migrations" in german textbooks. BTW fertility rates in the Roman Empire collapsed in the last 150 years because of the huge raise of personal income taxes, forcing the masses to move away from cities
BTW plagues striked Europe for 600 years but didn't affect demographic growth |
Are you sure about this (the plague part)?
Im not sure its the sole cause but I remember seeing graph and that period in Europe had slower growth than the previous period while for pretty much the rest of human history, growth has been increasing on the large scale (Except very recently)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=7741425
quote:
TOKYO (Reuters) - Most single Japanese women prefer not to marry and believe they can live happily alone for the rest of their life, a poll showed Friday, casting another shadow on the future of a country plagued by a falling birthrate.
About seven in ten single Japanese women surveyed by the conservative Yomiuri newspaper said they would rather stay unwed.
"The result reflects a recent trend among single women who no longer attach social stigma to choosing the single life," the daily said.
Japan's government is struggling to stem a tumbling birthrate and keep the population from shrinking.
The country's fertility rate -- the average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime -- fell to 1.29 in 2003, the lowest in the post-World War II period.
In Tokyo, the figure was a startling 0.9987.
Underscoring concerns that an aging population may dent future growth in the world's second-largest economy, Japan said Monday that its population grew only 0.05 percent in the year to Oct. 1, its slowest increase in 54 years. Japan's population totaled an estimated 127,687,000 as of Oct. 1, 2004.
A government think tank has forecast that Japan's population will peak in 2006 and start to shrink the following year.
If present trends persist, the population would fall to about 100.6 million in 2050. Among oft-cited reasons for the falling birthrate are higher education levels, changing attitudes toward marriage and individual freedom, the high financial burden of child rearing, and the hardships involved for working women given long hours on the job and a persistent dearth of daycare.
The Yomiuri said 74 percent of surveyed men and women in their 20s said they believe women can be happy unmarried, while the rate dropped to 66 percent of those in their 30s and 58 percent in their 40s. "The result depicted a tendency among younger generations to remain single, leading observers to the conclusion that the number of people who marry late will further increase and will lower the birthrate," the newspaper said.
Unless steps are taken, the shortage of children will create problems for Japan including damage to its economic growth prospects, higher social welfare costs for individuals, and even psychological problems from poorly socialized youth, said a government white paper released in October. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Go back and read my first post, lazy. |
Well in your post first you mentionned an 'explanation' for a trend...
But im not sure what you mean PRECISELY...
Is it a numerical difference or a difference in rates? etc...
From what can be gleaned in the article, the difference in rate of increase for men and women seems to be pretty close.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Didn't I explain that the enviroment counts as a variable in an ethical argument only in the context of human need?  |
Assuming that being child-less is selfish (which I still don't agree with), then wouldn't that be the preferable course of action in this case? It would be meeting the needs of that person (that's what being selfish is all about) while not hurting the needs of anyone else (unless you consider an unborn baby a person who's needs are worth equal consideration  ) Surely, not having kids is altruistic. 
And population growth does effect humans - perhaps the most of anythign in our environemnt
quote:
You're kidding, right? |
No. Me not having kids isn't going to have a very signifigant impact on society in my life time, it would require numerous generations of population decline for the benefits to be truelly felt. Unless you are going by the idea that it's selfish simply because they don't want to look after a kid, or something... which isn't neccisarily true, but, regardless, refraining from having a kid that you don't want is hardly selfish - it's responsible.
I know that I do like the idea of raising a kid at some point, but do not like the idea of bringing one into the world. Which is what adoption is for - meeting both the selfish needs of desiring a child, and being responsible in not bringing one more into the world. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-02-2005 21:14
|