Talk:Birth dearth

Birth dearth means that industrialized nations are falling below a replacement level of reproduction. This says nothing about overpopulation on a global level, nor does it entail a drop in population within these countries so long as immigration is allowed. This is why the claim that birth dearth and overpopulation are incompatible is simply nonsense. If you want to claim otherwise, back it up with sufficient citations. Al 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Alienus,

That was my mistake. I thought you'd said that it was incompatible with over population...my mistake. Chooserr 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I added the templates to the article, asthe whole article is NPOV and also need citing. Zero population is not seen as a "blight", "dilema", "problem", "disaster" by others, it is POV to describe it as such. The problem was the rampant and ill-considered breeding done by the baby-boomers - this is my POV however, hence i do not write it into articles without attributing it to reliable sources.Yobmod (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though some words do come across as POV the decline of the word population coupled with population aging is not seen as "good" by many international and national organizations such as the U.N. and various world governments. Also the baby-boomers spurred economic growth and cultural development (Rock N' Roll?) by providing a larger market and an overwhelming youth culture. Michael-Lucas Aubrey (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When societies plan for growing populations, set up infrastructure systems for them, set up pension systems that depend on them, and then the babies simply aren't born in sufficient numbers, things go bad. Whether it's China's 4-2-1 problem, the impending bankruptcy of the US Social Security system with SSDI going down in 2018 and main SS no longer being able to pay promised benefits in 2036 (according to the [2011 trustees report http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html]) none of these situations can be described as anything but undesirable. TMLutas (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birth dearth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520012529/http://msnbc.msn.com:80/id/6040427/site/newsweek to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6040427/site/newsweek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article to a page about the book

The article discussing the term is essentially discussing the book of the same name, so I suggest a new page be made about the book that also explains the term DukeofCarniola (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]