Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Bad news for fans of reproductive restraint. Apparently, having a large family is now the ultimate status symbol, at least on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. This kind of puts the lie to the belief that greater affluence automatically means lower fertility...

The ultimate status symbol, at least according to Wednesday Martin, Ph.D., author of the newly released memoir Primates of Park Avenue, is a whole mess of kids.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ultimate- ... 32256.html

Meanwhile:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/us/josh-d ... legations/

Dybbuk wrote:Bad news for fans of reproductive restraint. Apparently, having a large family is now the ultimate status symbol, at least on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. This kind of puts the lie to the belief that greater affluence automatically means lower fertility...

The ultimate status symbol, at least according to Wednesday Martin, Ph.D., author of the newly released memoir Primates of Park Avenue, is a whole mess of kids.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ultimate- ... 32256.html

Millionaires and up are a tiny percentage of the reproductive age adults on this planet, they could each have 20 kids and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans.

Tanada wrote:Millionaires and up are a tiny percentage of the reproductive age adults on this planet, they could each have 20 kids and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans.

The bad news is that the lower echelons of society have a strong tendency to try to emulate the elites.

This needs to be nipped in the bud - to get the message out that there is simply no way the human race can survive if our numbers keep growing. Anyone who advocates people having more than 2 kids should be publicly ridiculed as criminally insane and an existential threat to humanity.

Blokes can have as many as they can find willing mothers for, it's 2 msximum per woman for any chance of tapering population.

remember that there are only 2 scenario's in the LTG that don't end in disaster

the ones where we decide to stabilize human population

SilentRunning wrote:

Tanada wrote:Millionaires and up are a tiny percentage of the reproductive age adults on this planet, they could each have 20 kids and it wouldn't matter a hill of beans.

The bad news is that the lower echelons of society have a strong tendency to try to emulate the elites.

Not many commute to work at the quick stop in a Gulfstream or have a cabin in Aspen, emulate doesn't mean duplicate.

In a rural setting, children are free slave labor so a financial asset. Living in town, they are a financial burden, that is kind of the point of showing off by having lots of kids.

On the positive side, rich folks splitting their wealth between many offspring is pretty well the same as a large inheritance tax.

kiwichick wrote:remember that there are only 2 scenario's in the LTG that don't end in disaster

the ones where we decide to stabilize human population

The number of offsprings per woman in the world is already pretty close to two. Most of the population increase that will follow the next century can be put down to simple population momentum, since a disproportionate amount of the world's population is young. Harm's already done, and talking about population stabilization is a bit misguided at this point.

People seem to be stuck in the population bomb mode. Many areas are close to replacement and the most advanced (read "urbanized") areas are going to have a glut of old fogeys soon if not already because they are below replacement.

For right now anyway.

Pops wrote:People seem to be stuck in the population bomb mode. Many areas are close to replacement and the most advanced (read "urbanized") areas are going to have a glut of old fogeys soon if not already because they are below replacement.

Yes, we should acknowledge that great progress has been made. But it may have come a generation or so too late. If the fertility decreases had happened a few decades earlier, we might have ended up at a sustainable world population.

It also should be noted that the parts of the world which haven't gotten the memo about replacement-level fertility are among those who can least afford the ongoing population surge.

The glut of old fogeys is indeed problematic, but it's far preferable to the alternative.

Yep. The Old Fogey Bomb is the preferable problem now. Hopefully efficient ag, GMO burger patties, etc will keep folks urban long enough the population peaks and declines before widespread re-rural-ing due to low energy — and again makes little homegrown slaves profitable.