 |
| |
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kassiopeia
My guess would be that the US has more religions that allow and cause larger families and thus higher birthrates. The Mormons are a marginal group, but the Mexicans and Catholics (or even more, Catholic Mexicans) are another story. Europe, on the other hand, is mostly Protestant, excluding Italy, Spanish, Portugal and other possible smaller countries, and I think Catholism isn't practiced that fanatically as it is in the States. |
The US is ~3/4 Protestant, 1/5 Catholic.
I don't know if Europe as a whole is even half Protestant.
You've got UK, Germany, Nordic countries (can't remember if Swedes are Lutherans or Catholics) Switzerland and parts of Austria for a grand total in the neighbourhood of 150? million out of a total pop of 300 million. The rest are either Orthodox or Catholic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nacht
|
|
Amsterdam
May 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
There should be more heavy snowfalls. Last time Gothenburg was shut down for three days the birthrate tripled... |
Wasn't there a thread some time ago about Bush being able to let it rain in Europe? Maybe they could ask him?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
IoT
|
|
Interesting issue. Why would we be wanting to increase the birth rate in Western Europe? Most economic activities there scale both up and down with demand.
Another question (possibly OT) but why is it ethical to provide tax incentives for bearing children or additional taxation for single people?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
IoT
|
|
Still not sure why this is viewed as a problem. Granted agricultural communities may wither and populations may migrate but rebalancing political representation isn't too hard - urban high population areas get more political representatives than smaller population agricultural areas. From a permanance point of view - very little that is man made is permanent. People are very adaptable. Food production is not really an issue either IMO. Market forces will balance out land usage quite well although there may be strategic issues about being reliant on imported food stuffs.
I can possibly see an issue with retaining national/regional culture but globalization, European integration and the moderrn lifestyle have been eroding traditional culture for the last 200 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
leftover_crack
|
|
"The issue is not economic activity but more permanent structures and regional politics. The countryside is losing its population at quite a fast rate with the increased mobility of the workforce, meaning many communities dwindle down to nothing and dissappear. Local politicians are ****ing racists and don't want immigrants to replace them, ergo the call for more children. "
Its better to raise Swedish people to do this. Immigrants tend to work for lower wages, Send money home, and tends to erode the nations culture and creates anti-immigration atmoshpere. ( There taking our jobs...etc. Its hear in the US)
Not about Racism. Having more kids for the future makes more sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
IoT
|
|
But surely the whole issue is about scaling - with a smaller population you don't have any job that go unfilled. You are still likely to end up the same employment rates irrespective of the population size.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cairo_East
|
 |
Kansas City
Feb 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
People are agreeing with me? 
There is another good question which Time Magazine asks in its most recent issue. The American birth rate has been increasing steadly since it hit an all time low in the late 1970's while Europe's has continued, more or less, downward. Why the reason for this divergence? |
Here's what I learned in my sociology class:
The USA has far higher levels of immigration than nations in Western Europe. Most immigrants to the USA are in their early 20s, looking for work. After a few months, they can bring in their spouse or find a spouse here. Since any baby born in the USA is automatically a US citizen, it gives immigrants a stimulus to give birth here. Our birth rate therefore is rather steady at 2.4 kids per family. The 0% growth rate is 2.0 kids per family, so population growth is steady. In fact, the population doubling rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 74 years.
It's interesting to note the disparities in different parts of the country, however. California, which gets the lion's share of immigrants, is one of the youngest states in the US. Pennsylvania, however, is the 2nd-oldest state after Florida, and the number of childrens is far below the national average. Without immigration, US population growth would be barely above Western Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dan Severn
|
|
Wellborn, Texas The Warrior Dennis Miller
May 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Why does the population need to grow?
Europe is grossly overpopulated already, if it weren't for the relative affluence of the west, they'd starve to death very quickly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaak
|
|
okay, i'm moving to sweden...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-09-2002 09:37
Sorry, but i had to make it as benign and obscure as possible. Actually, i realised that i got it wrong. It is the "money shot". What i was thinking about was the "gravy stroke" 
Attachment: 
|
