Is singapore going to be overpopulated in the coming years?

[Verenigde Nederlandse Naties]

Heck, and what will they do?

[Distruzio]

What do you think?

[Augarundus]

1) Asian girls ftw. Regardless of what happens in Singapore, we have a moral imperative to produce more hot Asian girls. Too bad they've become rare in China.

2) No, they won't become overpopulated. The market will always adjust for the perfect rate of population expansion/contraction (Malthus be damned). That is to say, large populations are necessary within an agricultural economy and are permitted to expand rapidly in an industrialized economy. However, as Singapore becomes technologically and economically developed to such a degree that birth control is widely available, large families are no longer economically productive, etc., the population will peak, growth will be reduced, and the natives may experience a population decline (see: Europe). While the rapid growth within industrialized economies may be uncomfortable, it is necessary for economic progression and is temporary. This historical trend is easily observable in nations already highly developed (see: Western Europe and the United States; Japan industrialized early as well, but I know little about Japan (?)), and it's positive. When population growth decreases, immigration will likely fulfill many of the roles in Singapore's economy abandoned by the native population (due to birth rate decline)... meaning the total increase to the standard of living of individuals in the area is positive.

[Verenigde Nederlandse Naties]

What do you think?

I think it will decrease slightly

I hope so, I love asian girls and besides, I like it there (want to move there anyway)

[Distruzio]

What do you think?

I think it will decrease slightly

I hope so, I love asian girls and besides, I like it there (want to move there anyway)

Ah, well now that you've answered, I should as well. My answer? No. It won't. The market will provide.

[Rhodmhire]

1) Asian girls ftw. Regardless of what happens in Singapore, we have a moral imperative to produce more hot Asian girls. Too bad they've become rare in China.

This guy gets the fucking point.

I don't know much about Singapore, so I can't really say.

What I do know is that if they were to endorse legalized cannibalism, you could solve the potential overpopulation problem overnight.

[Romalae]

As long as Asian girls exist, it doesn't matter if Singapore gets overpopulated. Anyway, there's still some room there, and if it does continue to grow at such a huge rate, they could try annexing land from Malaysia, but that's highly doubtful. The market will always adjust to the population situation anyhow.

[Dyakovo]

1) Asian girls ftw. Regardless of what happens in Singapore, we have a moral imperative to produce more hot Asian girls. Too bad they've become rare in China.

2) No, they won't become overpopulated. The market will always adjust for the perfect rate of population expansion/contraction (Malthus be damned). That is to say, large populations are necessary within an agricultural economy and are permitted to expand rapidly in an industrialized economy. However, as Singapore becomes technologically and economically developed to such a degree that birth control is widely available, large families are no longer economically productive, etc., the population will peak, growth will be reduced, and the natives may experience a population decline (see: Europe). While the rapid growth within industrialized economies may be uncomfortable, it is necessary for economic progression and is temporary. This historical trend is easily observable in nations already highly developed (see: Western Europe and the United States; Japan industrialized early as well, but I know little about Japan (?)), and it's positive. When population growth decreases, immigration will likely fulfill many of the roles in Singapore's economy abandoned by the native population (due to birth rate decline)... meaning the total increase to the standard of living of individuals in the area is positive.

I think it will decrease slightly

I hope so, I love asian girls and besides, I like it there (want to move there anyway)

Ah, well now that you've answered, I should as well. My answer? No. It won't. The market will provide.

Long live the Free Market Fairy™!!!

[Eliasonia]

I don't know enough about Singapore to offer an opinion... but I will anyway.

Sure because I said so.

[Rhodmhire]

I love how 60% of this thread thus far has something to do with how hot Asian girls are.

Long live the Free Market Fairy™!!!

You had better start believing in her, bud. They say that if you leave all the money that you've lost in the recession underneath your pillow, you might get lucky and get a slap in the face from the Invisible Hand.

Fuck, it's hard to make jokes about the free market.

[Frenequesta]

Not likely, their growth rate is only around 3% or so.

That's a bit faster than the world average of 1.2%, but it's not like Singapore has a high fertility rate.

Then again, one could make the argument that the world is already overpopulated...

[Chrobalta]

Not likely, their growth rate is only around 3% or so.

That's a bit faster than the world average of 1.2%, but it's not like Singapore has a high fertility rate.

Then again, one could make the argument that the world is already overpopulated...

A rate of 3% would make it one of the 10 fastest growing countries in the world.

[Distruzio]

Not likely, their growth rate is only around 3% or so.

That's a bit faster than the world average of 1.2%, but it's not like Singapore has a high fertility rate.

Then again, one could make the argument that the world is already overpopulated...

The one that did has never been outside suburbia in the United States.

[Augarundus]

Long live the Free Market Fairy™!!!

I mean, I didn't just provide market reasons why this would occur, but it's empirically observable that this is a natural cycle (see: 18th to 21st century Europe).

Where the state has tried its hand at population control (numerous cases, but most notable/relevant is China), problems necessarily arise (too many males in China due to cultural mysticism/filial piety/family worship. Not enough Chinese women - actually, that's universally applicable under any circumstance- to keep the nation orderly. When the new generation is heavily male, and there are few females to be "distributed" amongst them, problems tend to arise). While I would argue that violence (that is to say, coercion- privatized or statist, which is fundamentally private anyway) ALWAYS leads to unintended and negative results, this is particularly observable in population control.

I love how 60% of this thread thus far has something to do with how hot Asian girls are.

That's, like, 90% of the internet. Seriously, what do you care more about?

This or this?

[Rambhutan]

The market will always adjust for the perfect rate of population expansion/contraction (Malthus be damned)....

The word 'bollocks' springs to mind.

[Rhodmhire]

I love how 60% of this thread thus far has something to do with how hot Asian girls are.

That's, like, 90% of the internet. Seriously, what do you care more about?

This or this?

Do you need to ask?

[Frenequesta]

Not likely, their growth rate is only around 3% or so.

That's a bit faster than the world average of 1.2%, but it's not like Singapore has a high fertility rate.

Then again, one could make the argument that the world is already overpopulated...

The one that did has never been outside suburbia in the United States.

Trust me, I have. I mean overpopulated in terms of that an increased standard of living entails even more and more resources being used up. Even if we become more efficient and technologically advanced.

Overpopulation in the US isn't a problem, or much of the Western world anyway. It's more of the other half that's the problem.

A rate of 3% would make it one of the 10 fastest growing countries in the world.

I was thinking that too. I'm seeing conflicting stats for its growth rate on the internet, but I then found a more up-to-date stat of .817%.

[Augarundus]

Then again, one could make the argument that the world is already overpopulated...

World overpopulation has always been a pretty stupid argument. It's not so much an idea that the population is too large, but that the resources don't exist to sustain it.

I'm just watching this now while reading a Malthus kritik and answers to it, b/c I'm not used to population growth arguments in general, but it's not a great argument.


EDIT: NVMD, that's a really shitty video series.

[Dyakovo]

Then again, one could make the argument that the world is already overpopulated...

World overpopulation has always been a pretty stupid argument. It's not so much an idea that the population is too large, but that the resources don't exist to sustain it.

I'm just watching this now while reading a Malthus kritik and answers to it, b/c I'm not used to population growth arguments in general, but it's not a great argument.


EDIT: NVMD, that's a really shitty video series.

What? You mean you can't find bullshit online to back-up your crackpot economic beliefs?
I'm disappointed in you.

[Augarundus]

What? You mean you can't find bullshit online to back-up your crackpot economic beliefs?
I'm disappointed in you.

wat

[Dyakovo]

What? You mean you can't find bullshit online to back-up your crackpot economic beliefs?
I'm disappointed in you.

wat

Need help with the big words?

[Augarundus]

Need help with the big words?

Fuck off.

Populations are dying off – removing death checks is key to prevent extinction
Lifesite News 04 (“The Inherent Racism of Population Control”, LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.) <http://www.lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf>

Yet, there is hope that the Malthusian tidal wave can be stopped and has in fact reached its peak. The success of the Population Firm may soon be its own downfall. The Population Bomb scare is quickly being replaced by a Population Implosion scare. Many countries, including most of the Western world, which embraced birth control and abortion are now experiencing fertility rates which are far below replacement levels. For the first time in history, in many of these countries more people are dying each year than are being born – Europe has begun to experience a negative birthrate! European populations are literally beginning to die off and their governments, previously supportive of the population control movement, are suddenly encountering a host of new social problems, such as disproportionate levels of the elderly and labour shortages. Developed countries are beginning to realize that the Population Firm has swindled them out of their greatest resource: people. In a surprising turn of events the efforts of the Firm may have completely have backfired – their propaganda has led many of the populations that eugenicists would consider part of the ‘superior’ class of humanity on the road towards extermination through minimal fertility rates. At the same time, although the Firm’s efforts have reduced fertility among the minority and poor populations who were the primary target of their efforts, these populations, especially in the countries of the Third World, continue to resist the full implementation of the Firm’s population programs. Thus, because the birthrate of the developed nations has decreased so rapidly while that of the undeveloped nations has decreased by less, the poor ethnic populations of the world now seem more likely to outgrow those in the wealthier developed nations than when the eugenics movement began its efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. While the implosion of the developed nation populations is occurring, it is becoming more difficult for the Population Firm to refute the ever-increasing amount of evidence proving them wrong. The lack of food shortages and population problems that they promised have not happened (see Introduction).


No resource shortage – we can support 30 billion people

Lifesite News 04 [size=80](“The Inherent Racism of Population Control”, LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family. LifeSiteNews Daily News reports and information pages are used by numerous organizations and publications, educators, professionals and political, religious and life and family organization leaders and grassroots people across North America and internationally.)
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf>

The pattern continues today. Economist Dennis Avery explained in 1995 that, food production was more than keeping pace with population growth since the world had, “more than doubled world food output in the past 30 years. We have raised food supplies per person by 25 percent in the populous Third World.”4 The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) also dispelled fears of shortages in the food supply when, in preparation for the World Food Summit in Rome in November of 1995 it reported that, “Globally food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years…at a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand.”5 The UNFAO also later estimated that, simply with the present available technologies fully employed, the world could feed 30 to 35 billion people, i.e. roughly six times the present world population.6 It also reported that the number of people considered malnourished has declined from 36 percent in 1961-1970 to 20 percent in 1988-90 and later proclaimed that “earlier fears of chronic food shortages over much of the world proved unfounded.”7 The World Bank joined in to predict in 1993 that the improvement in the world food supply would continue, while pointing out that in developing countries grain production has grown at a faster rate than population since 1985. Grain production has slowed in the United States, but that is because stocks have grown so large that additional production could not be stored.8 A further wealth of evidence is available to remove any concerns about resource shortage in the modern world.

And if that isn't enough, then you're also an ignorant douchebag:

Malthusian theory creates the most dangerous form of racism
Lifesite News 04

In making these claims, Malthus effectively had designated the poor as separate, innately inferior race. It was thus counterproductive, in his firmly held view, to try to help the poor because a bettering of their situation would increase their numbers and would only increase the harshness of nature’s checks on them as it sought to reign in the force of population growth.
Malthus’ claims carried a strong appeal to the upper echelons of society. Malthus had created a theory enshrining the inherent superiority of these elite of society, those who may have considered themselves better than the poor and labourers. He had also created a theory for those of the wealthy who were greedy by giving them reasons not to waste their wealth in, what he called, ‘foolish’ philanthropy. Thus, Malthus soon drew in many elite followers and earned the distinction of being the father of a new scientific racism, a racism more far-reaching than the old ethnic types of racism because it declared an enormous segment of the whole world’s population inferior because of their socioeconomic status.


Malthusian ideals lead to genocide of entire classes and overall lower quality of life
Lifesite News 04

At first glance Malthus’ motives may appear simply humanitarian – he may have simply wished to decrease the suffering of the poor and reduce the wrath and intensity of positive checks on them by allowing nature to naturally limit their numbers. Yet, at the core of his ideas lay a dangerous attitude, one which Allan Chase describes saying, “The poor in the eyes of Malthus, were a race apart from the non-poor, as indeed were ‘the middling classes’ created lower and apart from the gentry by the workings of the same Natural Laws.”22 Malthus had indeed effectively declared the poor a separate lower race, “the race of labourers.”23 This declaration was inevitable in the light of his initial claims about the inequality of the forces of population and substinence. As Malthus saw it, “It has appeared that from the principle of population more will always be in want than can adequately be supplied.”24 If the supply of resources can never meet the demand, he posited, then there must always be some who are in want, and these are the poor. Any attempt to share wealth (i.e. welfare) or help the poor will not help them because it cannot increase the availability of the means of subsistence. If anything, it will simply inflate food prices and leave the situation exactly as it was before. Malthus explains that, When substinence is scarce in proportion to the number of people, it is of little consequence whether the lowest members of the society possess eight pence or five shillings. They must at all events be reduced to live upon the hardest fare and in the smallest quantity.25
The poor cannot escape their fate; their lot in life ensures that they do not have the capacity to rise above their situation even if nature would allow it. The poor said Malthus, “to use a vulgar expression, seem to always live from hand to mouth. Their present wants employ their whole attention, and they seldom think of the future.”26
Malthus’ conclusion, therefore, is the harsh statement that “the truth is that the pressure of distress on this part of a community [labouring poor] is an evil so deeply seated that no human ingenuity can reach it.”27 Poverty is not only unstoppable, but necessary, for the evil that the poor “suffer from want of labour and unwholesome habitations, must operate as a constant check to incipient population.”28
Malthus’ convictions about the poor led him towards a simple solution to solve the social problems they presented. Nature must be allowed to take its course. Society must not interfere with poverty; it is “bound in justice and honour formally to disclaim the right of 9
the poor to support.”29 Malthus further claimed that, not only must nature be allowed to take its course, but it must be actually aided in its venture. Malthus strongly concluded that:
We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the
plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But, above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.30
Remarkably, Malthus was encouraging an active repression and abuse of the poor based on what he believed was their natural inferiority. In doing so he essentially had created and was advocating a new type of racism, a “scientific” racism by which whole segments of the population were to be discriminated against based on their socioeconomic status. The term “pauperism” came to mean a racial classification of those who were “naturally” and incurably poor. Allan Chase explains the outlook of the new “scientific” racism created by Malthus saying:
The poor and the near poor of all nations were–and still are–held to be a race apart, ‘a definite race of pauper stocks.’ In the countinghouse philosophy of scientific racism, the physiological, cultural, and economic woes of the poor and the nonaffluent ‘middling classes’ were scientifically ordained by Nature, and therefore neither preventable nor reversible.31
According to this view the poor owned nothing–not even the right to live. If a man is born poor, explained Malthus, “and if the society does not want his labour, [he] has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he is. At nature’s mighty feast there is no cover for him.” (Emphasis added).32 Thus, Malthus became the father of a “scientific” racism much more encompassing and more dangerous than the ethnic racisms of the past.

[Augarundus]

BY THE WAY:

Turn: Population growth is key to checking a population drop which causes dissolution of society

Washington Times 08 (“Taking on the Overpopulation Myth”, Joseph D’Agostino, book review of Steven W. Mosher)
< http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... tion-myth/>
The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1.
It used to be that folks relied on their children to help them on the farm or in their businesses, and especially in their old age. Economic incentives encouraged childbearing. But now socialism has taken over that role of families. "As [demographer] Phillip Longman has remarked, the modern nanny state has created a strange new world in which the most 'successful' individuals in material terms are the most 'unfit' in biological terms," Mr. Mosher writes."In all previous ages of human history wealth and children went hand-in-hand."
This brave new world in which children are both culturally and economically undesired could lead to the dissolution of whole societies, particularly Western ones, as they age and their social security systems go bankrupt through a dearth of taxpaying young people, Mr. Mosher suggests. The abandonment of biblical values, led by the Church of England in 1930 when it became the first major Christian denomination to endorse contraception, is in this area, as in so many others, leading the world down a self-destructive path.
At least Western societies are rich. Other nations facing rapid population aging, from China to Mexico, are still poor on a per-capita basis. This population bomb could become the greatest cost of population control.
 
Population Low

Population is dropping – especially in developed countries

VOANews 05 ( “Experts: Falling Time Bomb causes ‘demographic time bomb’, Leta Hong Fincher, March 3)
< http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... 2f13f673f2>
For hundreds of years, the world's population has grown steadily. But demographers now believe that within several decades, the number of people on earth will actually begin to decline. "What we're seeing now in many countries is the drop in fertility is so fast, it's literally without precedent in human history,” says Mr. Longman.



Phil Longman is a demographer at the New America Foundation research group in Washington D.C. Mr. Longman says that everywhere in the world, people are having fewer and fewer children. "And what it's going to mean is that countries like China for example, are going to age in a single generation as much as countries like France aged in 150 years," says Mr. Longman. This unprecedented drop in fertility is driven mostly by developing countries. The United Nations Population Division says that in the 1970s, each woman in the developing world had an average of almost six children. By the late 1990s, birth rates fell to about 3.9 children per woman. Fertility levels fell in all but four developing countries. Demographers say there are many reasons for the drop. Over the past few decades, people have used more effective contraception and delayed marriage. Women have had increased access to education and expanded opportunities for work. But demographer Longman says that above all, the rapid movement of people from farms to cities is causing fertility rates to fall. "We're now on the threshold of having half the world's population live in urban areas and the economics of parenthood are just dramatically different. If you're trying to raise a child in a high-rise apartment as opposed to on a farm, children go from being an economic asset to being an economic liability," says Mr. Longman.



Demographers point out that poor countries can benefit from falling fertility levels. Families have fewer children to support, leaving adults with more money to spend and invest. But the flip side to this initial prosperity is that the share of the population that is over 65 years old begins to increase. The younger, working-age share of the population shrinks and has to bear a greater burden for taking care of the elderly. Many analysts say that demography is destiny. Nowhere is this more true than in the world's most populous country, China.



At the beginning of the 1970s, each woman in China had an average of five-point-seven children. In 1979, the Chinese government imposed a coercive policy to control its runaway population growth. This policy succeeded in driving births down to an average of one-point-four children per woman. Not so long ago, the fear was a population explosion that would outpace food supply, causing famine and other disasters. Now, Richard Jackson, head of the global aging initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C., says that falling fertility and longer life spans have created a new demographic time bomb. "Sometimes, though, we get more than we wish for, and fertility, in fact, in China and throughout East Asia has fallen far beneath the replacement level. The problem is when you slow population growth, you not only reduce initially the growth of the population, and ultimately begin to shrink the size of the population, but you also dramatically change the age structure," says Richard Jackson.

[Jordsindia]

Everything is gonna overpopulate sometime.
Asian girls FTW!
Especially Africa, they breed like roaches over there.

[Demen 2]

BY THE WAY:

Turn: Population growth is key to checking a population drop which causes dissolution of society

Washington Times 08 (“Taking on the Overpopulation Myth”, Joseph D’Agostino, book review of Steven W. Mosher)
< http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... tion-myth/>
The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher. "The latest forecasts by the United Nations show the number of people in the world shrinking by midcentury, that is, before today's young adults reach retirement age." The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1.
It used to be that folks relied on their children to help them on the farm or in their businesses, and especially in their old age. Economic incentives encouraged childbearing. But now socialism has taken over that role of families. "As [demographer] Phillip Longman has remarked, the modern nanny state has created a strange new world in which the most 'successful' individuals in material terms are the most 'unfit' in biological terms," Mr. Mosher writes."In all previous ages of human history wealth and children went hand-in-hand."
This brave new world in which children are both culturally and economically undesired could lead to the dissolution of whole societies, particularly Western ones, as they age and their social security systems go bankrupt through a dearth of taxpaying young people, Mr. Mosher suggests. The abandonment of biblical values, led by the Church of England in 1930 when it became the first major Christian denomination to endorse contraception, is in this area, as in so many others, leading the world down a self-destructive path.
At least Western societies are rich. Other nations facing rapid population aging, from China to Mexico, are still poor on a per-capita basis. This population bomb could become the greatest cost of population control.
 
Population Low

Population is dropping – especially in developed countries

VOANews 05 ( “Experts: Falling Time Bomb causes ‘demographic time bomb’, Leta Hong Fincher, March 3)
< http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... 2f13f673f2>
For hundreds of years, the world's population has grown steadily. But demographers now believe that within several decades, the number of people on earth will actually begin to decline. "What we're seeing now in many countries is the drop in fertility is so fast, it's literally without precedent in human history,” says Mr. Longman.



Phil Longman is a demographer at the New America Foundation research group in Washington D.C. Mr. Longman says that everywhere in the world, people are having fewer and fewer children. "And what it's going to mean is that countries like China for example, are going to age in a single generation as much as countries like France aged in 150 years," says Mr. Longman. This unprecedented drop in fertility is driven mostly by developing countries. The United Nations Population Division says that in the 1970s, each woman in the developing world had an average of almost six children. By the late 1990s, birth rates fell to about 3.9 children per woman. Fertility levels fell in all but four developing countries. Demographers say there are many reasons for the drop. Over the past few decades, people have used more effective contraception and delayed marriage. Women have had increased access to education and expanded opportunities for work. But demographer Longman says that above all, the rapid movement of people from farms to cities is causing fertility rates to fall. "We're now on the threshold of having half the world's population live in urban areas and the economics of parenthood are just dramatically different. If you're trying to raise a child in a high-rise apartment as opposed to on a farm, children go from being an economic asset to being an economic liability," says Mr. Longman.



Demographers point out that poor countries can benefit from falling fertility levels. Families have fewer children to support, leaving adults with more money to spend and invest. But the flip side to this initial prosperity is that the share of the population that is over 65 years old begins to increase. The younger, working-age share of the population shrinks and has to bear a greater burden for taking care of the elderly. Many analysts say that demography is destiny. Nowhere is this more true than in the world's most populous country, China.



At the beginning of the 1970s, each woman in China had an average of five-point-seven children. In 1979, the Chinese government imposed a coercive policy to control its runaway population growth. This policy succeeded in driving births down to an average of one-point-four children per woman. Not so long ago, the fear was a population explosion that would outpace food supply, causing famine and other disasters. Now, Richard Jackson, head of the global aging initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C., says that falling fertility and longer life spans have created a new demographic time bomb. "Sometimes, though, we get more than we wish for, and fertility, in fact, in China and throughout East Asia has fallen far beneath the replacement level. The problem is when you slow population growth, you not only reduce initially the growth of the population, and ultimately begin to shrink the size of the population, but you also dramatically change the age structure," says Richard Jackson.

You can copy and paste, and insult someone far more intelligent than you.


Good job.