November 17, 2011
– Comments (5)
It appears a poor economy is one of the better forms of birth control. But that was my reasoning as to why the birth rate was going down, as I predicted three years ago.
That doesn't hold internationally.
In the end "birth control" doesn't apply to countries of poverty. A child is viewed more as an asset especially if it is male. This is not meant to be sexist. Families in poorer or growing economies push population growth since those children represent income via employment.
Personally it is irrelevant to me since I will be dead soon enough but in the end some races will dominate others over time.
awallejr, what do you mean you will be dead soon enough?
Oh I was just talking in terms of the scheme of things over time, nothing imminent ;)
This Latvian blogger has some interesting ideas on the correlation between debt and population growth
from this blog:
Seems to jive with your thinking. Impoverished nations tend to be surplus nations (these days) and so can afford to have many kids. The developed debtor nations are too heavily leveraged for more rabbits running around (until the de-leveraging ends). Interesting theory anyways.