Church grabs chance to attack birth control pill

[supersunbird]

Since you didn't read the articles I posted I'll explain.
To maintain any population you need 2.5 children per family.
The 2 is to continue the 2 parents' line and the 0.5 is for
all those who don't make it - die, don't reproduce, can't reproduce etc.

What's happening in Europe and other places, according to the OECD
and other bodies is that there is an increasingly ageing population
with fewer young people. You need a certain number of young to work
for the old ie retirees. With increasing longetivity those groups
increase further.

As is Europe has 1.5 as average which is obviously not good
for the economy, for the culture and so on.

This does not address what I said, does it? Is Fertility down? Or is it just that too much contraception is used? And who would pay for these extra kids (concidering that the peoples cultures now place quality above quantity)?

 

[PeterCH]

This does not address what I said, does it? Is Fertility down? Or is it just that too much contraception is used? And who would pay for these extra kids (concidering that the peoples cultures now place quality above quantity)?

It does address all you said. The word fertility however was used incorrectly by me but that's not your point.

In any modern society it's said you need about 3-4 (see link) working adults
to support one elderly pensioner. You also need 2.4-2.5 children per family
in order to preserve the same level of population - ie keep equilibrium.
In Europe, the mean has been 1.5 for a long while now, which means, if you
read the article, coupled with increasing life expectancy, more and more
old age pensioners and fewer people to work for them. What that means is that these old people will have to have reduced health benefits, reduced pensions and so on to allow not 3-4 workers per elder but 2-3 workers per elder, OR one can keep their benefits, after all they worked for them and tax the smaller workforce MORE to allow grand-pa a crack at having his cataracts removed or his heart attack treated with expensive cardiac catheterisation and stenting (examples of necessary but expensive procedures old people often undergo). Overburdening the young with taxes
will be detrimental for the economy as will reduced numbers of consumers as that will lead to more businesses closing down and more layoffs and fewer
younger people will mean less talent and innovation - ie more stagnation.

So your suggestion about who would pay for these extra children is
inappropriate because as things are, there is a deficiency of kids and
a surplus of adults especially older ones - and they will get older and older.

If Europe wants to maintain its economic power it will have to either increase reproduction OR import foreign labour.

You say peoples' cultures are about quality vs quantity but that will reverse as few children will have to support their aging parents - the same parents who so value quality over quantity as you put it.

Anyway don't take my word for it but ask the OECD.

Korea, Japan and China have similar problems. China decided to force 1 child families with one unnatural instant. This means that at some stage there will be a huge amount of elderly and very few agile, working adults to work for these people. I think the figure thrown around is 500-700million people over 70 years old.