At Large
Bursting the Economist’s Population Bubble
How the population problem is not solving itself.
The Economist magazine’s cover story for October 31, 2009 “Falling fertility: How the population problem is solving itself,” is notable both for its eminently sane rebuke of population control extremists, and for its nearly unqualified optimism with regard to plummeting fertility rates in the developing world.
The unsigned article posits that since economic prosperity tends to correlate with lower birth rates, the move toward replacement and below-replacement level fertility in the developing world actually bodes well both for them and for us. What the author calls a demographic/economic “Goldilocks moment” is a boon because with fewer children women are empowered to advance in education and work outside the home, there are fewer net dependents on society’s tab, and the rapid population growth and the commensurate environmental damage that so concerns neo-Malthusians is curtailed.
Oddly, the article makes only a passing mention of the fact that “eventually developing countries will face the same problems of ageing as Europe and Japan.” Eventually may be coming very quickly indeed, especially since in the Economist’s own words, “what took place in Britain over 130 years (1800-1930) [a near-halving of fertility rates] took place in South Korea over just 20 (1965-85).”
What The Economist calls a “boon” for the developing world is more akin to a bubble, as in the recent housing bubble in the United States. Below replacement fertility which appears to come with economic prosperity will likely have even more devastating consequences for the developing world in a few short years than it will have in the rich nations. The economies of poorer countries will not be cushioned by foreign workers willing to come and work for low wages as currently happens in aging industrialized nations. Pensions (in the rare cases that they exist), health care and other forms of social security are even more likely to be woefully underfunded in countries with no tradition of government-supplied support for the elderly.
It will be no picnic in the rich countries either. In Japan, the “pop” of their supposedly optimal economic/demographic ratio now rings in the country’s ears like a bomb blast: its leaders are in a panic over what to do with a population that has not stabilized at replacement level, but is falling precipitously.
The article correctly refers to the fact that the United States is the only developed nation that has raised its fertility rate above the replacement level after falling below it. Some European nations have seen slight increases in their childbearing by dint of enormous social spending, but not nearly enough to stave off rapid ageing and a population crash in coming years. And more fiscally conservative leaders are now looking for ways to roll back the massive social entitlements that they rightly see cannot be sustained as fewer workers are born into the economy to pay for them.
Russia is the proverbial canary in the coal mine of below replacement fertility demography. This nation’s mounting losses numbered 6,622,000 inhabitants just in the period 1992-2006 despite increasingly frantic efforts by their government. Population losses as high as 20% or more are already “programmed in” for the next few decades in Japan, Germany, Italy and many others thanks to longstanding below replacement fertility. The fact that the remaining inhabitants in these countries will be disproportionately elderly shall only serve to perpetuate the crisis until long after fertility rises above replacement levels again.
The subtitle of the Economist’s article is exactly wrong. The population problem is not solving itself. Neo-Malthusian overpopulation ideologues have dominated the public discourse and the policy arena for decades, and they achieved their objectives. In half of the world the next generation will not replace their parents. Human suffering on a massive scale in graying societies is sure to follow as many of these countries have generous social programs; programs which are unsustainable without a growing population and commensurate increasing tax base.
It is past time to embrace more responsible approaches to the current demographic situation of the world, including a complete reversal of the wrongheaded anti-fertility mindset of the last four decades. The Economist rightly chastises Green radicals who increasingly call for draconian population control measures like those which have wreaked havoc on China. But the magazine errs in only considering what they see as the economic boom which tends to follow plummeting fertility rates. It is wise to consider readily available evidence that there is no reason to believe that declining fertility is a boon for Africa any more than it is now considered one in Russia and Japan.
Children are not the source of our problems. More than ever before, they are the irreplaceable resource to heal our world.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/10/bursting-the-economists-popula
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- A President Loses His Power
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 11.10.09 @ 7:16AM
We have reared a generation that believes its parents and grandparents will continue to work forever, so they do not have to. And the Liberal parents and grandparents have created huge entitlement programs and handed them over -- or is trying very hard to hand them over -- to people who believe that work is something you do when you absolutely cannot find anything else to do, including spending four hours on Twitter and updating your Facebook page.
The shock of Generation Whine and its GrabbyBaby offspring is going to be great, but the shock of its parents and grandparents is going to be greater, when everyone discovers that it is impossible to keep the wheels turning when everybodywho isnt retired has her head buried in a two inch screen Tweeting OMG to the world.
JAY| 11.10.09 @ 7:24AM
People are living much longer and are healthier much longer and, and at least potentially, productive much longer. Shouldn't this mitigate the population problem?
Avitar| 11.10.09 @ 2:07PM
Nothing is mitigated because the survival is shifted away from the productive populationss. The young are dieing less but the nations with national health care are doing nothing to improve the fuction of the elderly. Instead the adminstrators follow the goal of the Obama Administration and attempt to minimize medical spending by reducing the spending during the last deccades of life.
JP| 11.10.09 @ 8:35AM
Jay,
To see the problem correctly, you must approach it statistically. Yes people are living longer, and could lead potentialy more productive lives (my own father still works as a toolmaker at age 76).
If a nation averages 2.1 children per female, and the nation has 0 immigration/emmigration, its population in 100 years will be roughly the same as its present population. Yes, even if the life expectancy increases from say 68 to 72, it's net growth is still the same - 0. With higher life expectancy, its population will just age a bit.
If you continue to do the math, and decrease fertility rates to say 1 child/female, said nation will see roughly a halving of its population every generation. Again, if life expectancy is getting better, there numbers may slow a bit, but eventually everyone does die.
The social, economic, and political rammifications are enormous. For a moment, forget about Europe and Asia, and think about the US. We've built an entitelment state that roughly needs about 3-6 children per female per generation to ensure a)there are enough workers paying into our pay-as-you-go Social Security system b)there are enough younger workers paying payroll taxes to cover Medicare. The costs of both these entitlements will come to roughly $100 trillion through 2050 -or about $2.0 trillion a year. The US has averaged the last 30 years anywhere from 1.7 children per female to 2.2 - last year it dipped to 1.9 children per female. In short, we have an entitlement system that requires women to have anywhere from 3 to 6 children. We've fallen far short of those numbers. To makes matters worse, we've borrowed from future generations (assuming there will be enough children) to fund our current entitlement spending.
A growing economy needs people, lots of them. From 1980-2008, we saw both a huge increase in wealth creation worldwide and a slowing of the fertility rate. But much of that wealth creation came about through a glut of Baby-Boomers in Europe, North American and Asia. Those boomers are now moving into retirement, and there are fewer people in thier wake. All but 2 of the G-20 nations have fertility rates below 2.0; many are approaching the lowest of the low -1.1 per female.
This is coming crisis which we cannot avoid. Which makes one wonder how Pelosi, Obama and Reid think we can expand universal coverage without breaking the bank.
John - TMF| 11.10.09 @ 8:36AM
As we descend further into Utilitarian - Materialism (aka - Socialism/Marxism/Fascism/Welfare Statism (Democrat Party)) the reality of the disintegration of the entire western world is becoming more obvious.
In its constant chronic cycle of control, envy, self-importance, and preoccupation with the material world, Utilitarian - Materialism seeks to minimize that which must be maximized in order for civilization to survive.
The economic consequences of the collapse of the west's birthrate are astounding. You see, wealth is fundamentally HUMANITY. All the gold, silver, capital goods, material goods, whatever... depend on one thing to make them valuable... HUMANS.
What we are seeing now, is a collapse of economy based on borrowing against future generations wealth generating capability. Of course those monetarily burdened future generations are decreasing in size and ambition.
At some point, nothing much will be left to pay for what is owed. The entire economy will collapse like a Mayan city... its left over people to scatter into the jungle to subsist and rebuild something in the future.
Unless the West rebuilds the family, and begins to repopulate itself at a clip greater than 3 children per family, it will die off.
Our wealth is our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Our progeny are THE ONLY WEALTH. When we abandon them (the potential of them), we commit cultural/civilizational suicide.
r/The Mighty Fahvaag
Derek Leaberry| 11.10.09 @ 8:38AM
The collapse of Christianity during the 20th Century has much to do with the birth dearth. It might even be said that the huge welfare states in Europe and America were dependent on Christian values towards children. But the elites turned their backs on Christianity and the elite's model sees the abyss.
Happily, at the Latin Mass Catholic church I attend it is rather usual for a family to have six, seven, eight and even ten children. They are the future. And don't expect them to be libertarians!
Jeanne| 11.10.09 @ 9:04AM
Unfortunately, your families of 6+ do not represent the majority of the world population. If JP's statistics are correct, those families will barely move the fertility rate upward. That's how dire the circumstances are.
brutus6| 11.10.09 @ 3:20PM
Jeanne, good coment but we should not overlook Derek's last and powerful point: "And don't expect them to be libertarians!"
All those Latin couples (I sincerely HOPE they are couples and not single parents..) with quivers full of children at those Catholic masses, will most likely raise those children to be reliable voters for liberal Democrats.
So not only do we need to make more babies, as author Meany and many posters here suggest, but we also need to educate those children (and the parents of those children) so they will grow up to be thinking adults who will sensibly vote against politicians promising expansion of entitlements that we can't possibly pay for.
Nick| 11.10.09 @ 9:34PM
Brutus6,
"[...] will most likely raise those children to be reliable voters for liberal Democrats."
On what do you base this opinion?
Roy| 11.12.09 @ 3:31AM
Liberal Democrats? You have GOT to be kidding me. That or you are a thoroughgoing ignoramus.
People who attend Latin masses are the most traditional of Catholics. They are not about to vote for the party that is above all else about the arbitrary slaughter of unborn infants.
Views on entitlements are likely to widely differ, especially by age. Lots of people still think "Christian = Help the Poor = Big Government" but watching Democrats enthusiastically egg on the vivisection of unborn infants puts a big dent in that.
Appleby| 11.10.09 @ 9:13AM
Unfortunately the productive people who have large families are vastly outnumbered by the Oprah Class whose offspring are more likely to tenant our jails than our business offices.
Jeff| 11.10.09 @ 10:28PM
Derek has a VERY important point in that there is an unrecognized sriptual aspect to the Green Movement and the population control belivers.
They hate human beings. Their stated motives are not for the benefit of the people who are here they are to benefit this planet which they openly state has been violated by the presence of human beings.
PolishKnight| 11.10.09 @ 10:12AM
The author makes some good points but falls for RINO fallacies such as "The economies of poorer countries will not be cushioned by foreign workers willing to come and work for low wages as currently happens in aging industrialized nations"
That's just plain silly. There's no need for poorer countries to import poor people to do cheap work. They're already there! The notion that cheap immigration (and illegal immigration) is necessary was created because certain industries love cheap labor and pushing the costs of higher unemployment in that bracket via the welfare state onto the taxpayer. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible but it doesn't make economic sense since the welfare state, like massive bailouts, will only come to haunt their buyers and themselves later via higher tax rates and inflation (in addition to the social costs of high crime and poverty).
Decreasing birth rates have worked well, more or less, in so called socialist paradises such as Scandanvia where many immigrants have hesitated to go because, well, it's cold there. Smaller, more well educated populations are able to more efficiently exploit and share natural resources as compared to massive bubble economies that squabble over decreasing resources. If America's population had stabilized at 1960's levels, we could easily have energy independence by now. Next time you're in a traffic jam in one of America's many office parks, er, cities, think about whether you your life is so much better because of twice as many drivers on the road!
The so-called elderly crisis is only a problem for the ponzi social security scheme. Russia's economy is a growing powerhouse because they have plenty of resources to export and few people.
PolishKnight| 11.10.09 @ 11:20AM
Scandanavia has one of the fastest growing Muslim populations in Europe. Cities like Malmo already have Muslim majorities.
I think you overstate things like technology and productivity gains when calculating the effects of falling birthrates. For economies to grow you need many things, and the most important of these are people -namely young people. There is only so much consumption one person can do, and there is only so much productivity one can squeeze out of a labor hour. And Russia's economy is not growing. Russia relies totally on oil and natural gas exports for the majority of revenues. A nation without children is a dead nation. Russia is on track to lose half of its population by 2110. No society in the history of the human race has survived with those numbers.
Your problem is you conflate growing populations with socialism. It's actually reversed; those nations with the most generous entitlements are on a direct line to demographic death. Even in China, with its one child policy, will get old before it gets rich.
KyMouse| 11.10.09 @ 10:32AM
Population notes from the East:
Russia's population may drop from 140 million to 100 million by 2050, according to an AP article from this past summer. Russian has instituted the Order of Paternal Glory, a prize of 50,000 rubles (a ruble is worth about four cents), as a desperate attempt to reverse the death spiral brought about by abortion, alcoholism and AIDS.
President Medvedev presented the award to a number of parents who gave birth to, or adopted, at least four children and are thus creating "big, friendly families." He added that "we must strive to make the humane treatment of children and the aspiration to create full-fledged, big families measurements of the development of our society, our state."
In Russia, 2007 was The Year of the Child, and 2008 was The Year of the Family.
A while back, an Asian fund in which I own a microscopic amount of stock sent me a quarterly report that had a cheerful item about a Japanese company that is making a financial comeback. Since Japanese families have opted for fewer, or no, children, the diaper-manufacturing company was on the skids. The company realized that Japanese are lavishing attention (and money) on their pets instead, and began making diapers for dogs. Hey, what a great idea!!!!!
Tick tock, tick tock....
John| 11.10.09 @ 10:37AM
Correlation does not equal causation. The Economist says the birth rate of industrial countries dropped as economic prosperity increased, but this was due to many factors. For instance, women were required to work in factories to support the war effort. After the war they were unwilling to give up this new freedom from both the domestic toil as well as economically. Of course the increase in time at work has two relevant consequences 1) less time to procreate and 2) higher productivity rates.
Note WWII was unique due to the massive industrialization and the reduction of complex products into easy and repeatable steps meant a brand new untrained workforce (women) could be put to use quickly and effectively.
I would suggest the causal relationship is the other way around, the higher productivity generated by introducing up to 50% more workers almost instantaneously lead to wealth increases and baby decreases.
And this proposition raises an entirely different set of concerns and possible solutions.
NED| 11.10.09 @ 10:52AM
Everyone seems to be carefully avoiding the other population trend occuring in Europe... those many immigrants are NOT little Swedes and Frenchmen who just happened to be born somewhere else... they are Muslim, often militant, and they demand the same level of social welfare that the native-born granted themselves all these years. They have no incentive to do anything except draw their stipend, which by itself gives them a higher standard of living than they left behind...
Why work, just let the suckers support them while they demand ever more accommodation and the native-born population dwindles - and very soon the few left who might complain won't dare to.
Anthony| 11.10.09 @ 11:23AM
An excellent point, one which Mark Styn addresses in detail in his book "America Alone". This book is a must read. The West is committing suicide, slowly.
Northern Rebel| 11.10.09 @ 10:53AM
If we used the Hong Kong method, we could fit the entire world's population into Texas. (Much to Old Texican's chagrin!)
The problem is, we are not having enough children to replace ourselves, but third world countries, and more importantly, the enemies of western civilization are!
It won't be long before we are outnumbered by people who can't, or don't want to, share our way of life.
Americans have gone through enough generations , where they have grown accustomed to freedom and liberty, but if we examine history, freedom for individuals, is an anomoly, and tyranny has been the norm.
In order for capitalism, freedom, and liberty, to remain a viable lifestyle, we must continue to out number the enemies of said beliefs.
So either grab your weapons, or a bottle of wine, and your wife, and get to work!
Seek| 11.10.09 @ 11:30AM
I find it a dangerous argument that we in the West need to outbreed the developing world, especially the Muslim part. It's a battle we can't win. And if we do, everyone loses.
Northern Rebel| 11.10.09 @ 11:50AM
I didn't say out breed, I said outnumber. At least outnumber the ones who want us dead.
I'm afraid there is only one way to do that, and I suggest we get crackin'!
Seek| 11.10.09 @ 12:07PM
How about instead of creating quiverfulls of Americans, we create a world of fewer Muslims, here and everywhere else?
Find| 11.10.09 @ 3:33PM
How would you do that?
Pingback| 11.10.09 @ 12:46PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Bursting the Economist's Population links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Derek Leaberry| 11.10.09 @ 1:07PM
Seek, you should seek out the writings of Srdja Trifkovic. His answer is to basically quarantine the Muslim countries. No immigration from the Muslim countries and no American military intervention in Muslim countries. Works for me.
Northern rebel| 11.10.09 @ 1:58PM
Seek:
I don't see what's wrong with doing both!
We don't nessesarily have to create a "quiverful" of Americans, but I do think it would be best for our planet to produce humans who believe in individual freedom, and liberty for all.
In addition, (or subtraction, as it were) I think it's best to eliminate those who would use power over others to personally benefit, (communism), or for some evil ideaology.(Islamic Fascism).
In order to produce these results, we may have to bring war to those who are evil, and hate freedom, and liberty.
In other words, we may have to kill as many of them as it takes to destroy their will to fight , as we did to Japan, and Germany 65 years ago.
I am against the idea, that we are overpopulated, and less people means more resources.
This is not a zero-sum game. There is plenty of room for everybody, if everybody has an equal opportunity to persue capitaism.
Michael Tomlinson| 11.10.09 @ 4:36PM
The one culture that needs to depopulate Islam seems to still be fertile.
Mr.Reality| 11.10.09 @ 8:09PM
Latinos in the USA seem to be procreating at a decent clip. I've read were second or third generation still stick to the large family model of the old country, and also many of the births are out of wedlock. I think there used to be a Catholic Church that worked at doing something to teach against that kind of thing. I wish instead of politicking for open borders and more welfare for these folk the cost be darned, they'd go back to the old teachings. The immigrant bunch my swarthy clan was part did two things that are undervalued . First if boy green horn lay down with girl greenhorn and a baby greenhorn was born, the little bungle of joy had a married couple for parents who took care of it. Also we did come with skills, trades, professions that were in demand. I have no idea of the stats on muslim immigrants, but my direct observation of people I know show that they marry and care for their children with little if any state aid, and are business self starters and adept at science and technology. You don't see a whole lot of them in film and communication school, or dreaming to be hair dressers.
JP| 11.11.09 @ 7:33AM
Mr Reality,
The Church still embraces Humana Vitae, and prohibits fornication and adultery. Too bad they're not finding many adherents.
The fertility problem isn't just an abstract issue, like many treat it to be. It will not be too long before it rears its ugly head, and effects everyone. In less than a decade (probably 7 years) Medicare and Social Security will be officially broke; millions of Boomers will begin to draw down thier investments as they retire in force; and these same Boomers (who fueled so much of our production and consumption in past decades) will pull back thier spending as they fall back on fixed incomes. In thier wake will be fewer workers (consumers and producers), with fewer financial resources, and higher tax liabilities. And behind these workers will be even fewer children. A general decrease in our standard of living will be the likely result.
Pete Murphy | 11.10.09 @ 9:58PM
Fertility rates may be falling, but death rates are falling faster. The result is a population explosion.
The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded "the dismal science" after Malthus' theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues.
But because they are blind to population growth, there's one obstacle they haven't considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.
If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like.
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
Frank Dugas| 11.10.09 @ 10:42PM
Dear Paul Erlich oops I mean Pete Murphy, Clearly you have never heard of Julian Simon, one of the greatest humans who ever lived. Take moment to read up on him, and maybe you can pull yourself out of the 1970s.
Here is a good start.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/polic.....0n2-1.html
bk| 11.11.09 @ 12:24AM
folks, for half a century we have bashed men and the unborn; now those chickens are coming home to roost. Happily, the jewesses and other white females who led the charge against the unborn, against men, and against family will have plenty of muslim men to keep them company in the decades ahead.
we'll see how that turns out. Methinks that these whiney-vagineys who have done so much to denigrate/desecrate western civilization in our universities, media and law courts will really have something to whine about in another generation-plus. The only problem for them is that the new kid on the block could care less about them or about their concerns.
congratulations, ladies: you deserve everything you're going to get.
Supra TK Society | 11.11.09 @ 3:30AM
Hi! I like your srticle and I would like very much to read some more information on this issue. Will you post some more?
As we know , we can find lots of fans ,lots of store have been open worldwide.
Mr.Reality| 11.11.09 @ 5:47PM
JP, I have a paid up house and if I get a 6 per cent yield on my 401k will have close to a million. These are goals I set 25 years ago. I and my wife worked hard to meet them. We sacrificed and did right by our kids, and took care of are older relatives to one degree or another(still are). I know we won't starve and are better off than many middle class people, but still I worry. I know even a guy like me is seen as a juicy pork chop by the current federal government and they want a big bite out of me. Already my wife and I know we will have yo live in a smaller place than the "lavish" home we planned on with 2200 square feet of living space. I get those social security statements and in doing my financial planning cut back the projected check I am said to be due by one third. The hope I see is in the young people I know who assume real responsibility, marry, buy homes , etc. Once they plug into reality they reject the current junk being pushed down their throats. They want liberty, and American traditions. Many of them tell me what they want to learn now is history-something they tell me was ignored or distorted in college. There is some hope. And we must embrace the immigrants who love America in its truest sense, and many do.
Alice Finkel | 11.11.09 @ 10:16PM
Nice response to the Economist's naive set of articles! You are so right that entitlement-based societies like the US and Europe have to keep pumping new workers into the system, to support the old workers who retire. They can't do that if the population is stable, or falling.
If replacement workers are immigrants, the host country absolutely must take care that the immigrants are as productive and have as much potential brainpower as the native workers they are replacing.
You not only need manual workers, but you also need educators, engineers, medicos, accountants, technicians, lawyers, and so on. If the immigrants can't fill those upper level shoes, you quickly develop a segregated society that is unstable. The lower classes fill quickly and adopt political populism based on envy and extortionate disruptionist policies.
If you like Venezuela, you'll love the future US, if present immigration trends continue.
Donald Kingsbury | 11.11.09 @ 11:19PM
I am a retired mathematician and always laugh at these naive discussions about population increase/decrease. At the explosive birth-rate/death-rate ratio of the 20th century it would take less than ten thousand years to convert the known mass of the universe into human bodies. (Do the math!) Of course the whole damn thing would break down into poverty, war, misery, famine, disease and horror long before that -- I expect it to break down this century. The decline hasn't set in yet. We are still exploding at about 75 million a year toward global catastrophe. On the other hand, if everybody goes to a birth-rate/death-rate less than one, the implosion and collapse of population is very very rapid. But humans don't think that way -- they go from boom to bust easily, forgetting the past within a generation or two. Who remembers the Black Death which halved the population? Suppose earth's population peaked at 15 billion with 90 percent of them Muslims, but then collapsed back to 2.5 billion (the world population when I was born)? That would be hell on the couple of generations that went through the collapse (because they were too dumb to plan their future) but the surviving 2.5 billion wouldn't have to worry about carbon-dioxide emissions or where their water was coming from -- and the ones who still believed in having families would be the ones who would be carrying on man's destiny. If Russia's population drops to 100 million, they may well be the group who inherit the Earth -- if they can keep the hungry hordes from duplicating the Mongol invasion! Just don't expect to survive peacefully in a world that doesn't know how to control population booms/busts. Note that American's -- specifically feeble-minded Democrats, Republicans, independents -- are LOUSY at controlling any kind of boom or bust. Take stock of the world around you. It is economic bust time -- but by mid-century it will look like the good-old days -- providing you are still alive to study history!
kamas dofus | 11.12.09 @ 5:03AM
http://www.igchest.com
weqeq| 4.1.10 @ 2:41AM
MOV to DVD Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only help you to convert MOV files to DVD, but also can help you to edit the MOV files before converting, set the output parameters, and edit the DVD menu.
FLV to WMV Converter is the most professional software, which is able to convert flv to wmv and convert flv files to wmv. In addition, it is very versatile, for flv file converter wmv can also convert flv to AVI, MP3, MPEG, MP4, iPod, etc. Is it your best assitant
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 9:10PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 11:05PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. poptropica
Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you.poptropica
. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out.Poptropica When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
Terry Rudd | 6.11.10 @ 10:11PM
Great article. Contact me for an update on how soon we can expect the bubble's burst.