Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


INTL Given Current Trends, In 300 Years There Will Be Only 300 Japanese Left
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 32 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    52,703

    Given Current Trends, In 300 Years There Will Be Only 300 Japanese Left

    Graphics at the link, can't get them to copy over.
    ============================

    https://gefira.org/en/2017/12/05/in-...japanese-left/

    In 300 years there are only 300 Japanese left

    The world's third largest economy has an aging and shrinking population and will simply disappear. The low fertility is not unique to Japan. The same problem besets Taiwan, China and Korea as well as the United States and Europe. In the West the establishment has opted for population replacement. Countries like the UK, France and Sweden see a population growth only thanks to mass migration from Africa and Central Asia. The US replenished its dwindling population stock with migrants from Mexico to such an extent that in some counties Spanish is now the language of the majority.

    After the Second World War Japan experienced the post-war baby boom. In 1948 a law was passed, most probably serving American interests, enabling easy access to abortion. At that time the fertility rate (average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime1) was more or less stable ¨ about 2,1 ¨ which is the level needed to maintain population. However, in 1973 it started to decline rapidly and in 2005 it reached the lowest value of 1,26; in the same year the number of deaths has been higher than the number of births. Nowadays it stands at about 1,46. The statistics are devastating: every hour Japan's population is dropping by about 51 people.

    No other nation is ageing so fast and nowhere do we have as many centenarians (1/5 of their world's population). Twenty years ago the 40-50 and 20-30 age-groups were the largest, now about one-third of the Japanese are above 65 years old and the number of people aged 60+ continues to increase.

    What is the reason for this phenomenon? The answer is simple: lack of children. The Japanese society focused on production of goods rather than the production of offspring.

    The Japanese are accustomed to living a comfortable life and all too often they choose a career over a family. Marriages are concluded later and fewer. 1 in 4 men and 1 in 7 women remain unmarried at age 50 (not including divorcees and widows or widowers). There is no equilibrium between public and private life. Japanese work overtime and do night shifts, socialize with professional colleagues and go on business trips. Many young people have temporary and part-time jobs without social benefits and with a low salary, so they say they cannot afford children. The employers do not support mothers. Employment with mothers and pregnant women is often discontinued. Because of insufficient daycare for children and lack of kindergartens 70% of women who have their first child stop working for at least 10 years. Costs of child raising are high. Even older people (and they are the big part of the Japanese society) are not well-disposed to children who disturb them with their noisy behaviour. There are cases where the playgrounds, playing fields or other facilities for children have been removed for this reason. The problems in western societies are similar. Women are encouraged to have a professional carrier, which enlarges workforce and productivity. On the other hand the declining and aging population translates into a drop in workforce and less consumption and the resultant slowdown of economic growth and a smaller GDP. If the nation's total tax revenues decrease, there is little money to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure. The demand for health care will be bigger and it will lead to its increasing costs. The real-estate market, the traditional driver of credit creation, will collapse. There will be more and more abandoned buildings and empty places. The number of unoccupied dwellings has increased from 0.43 % in 1948 to almost 15% in 2017. Rural areas are the first to become empty. In 20 years the area of abandoned land is likely to reach the size of Austria.


    Japan's depopulation will affect many states ¨ the US, China, South-East Asia, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Europe ¨ because the country is the world's 4th largest exporter and 5th largest importer. The US will lose its 4th largest business partner. These countries may experience problems with the import of machines like computers, broadcasting equipment and automobiles. Most economists failed to understand the devastating effects of the drastic and unprecedented change in the population.

    Japan's shrinking population is a result of many factors from the recent past. Surely, the publication of a women's handbook, educating them about fertility and used as the promotion tool is not enough to encourage them to have children. It is hard to reverse the declining trend. What can be done? Japan, like the white man's world, could be more open to immigrants. If Japan succeeded in having immigrants settle down in their country, then the Japanese race, culture, traditions would vanish and the nation wouldn't survive in anything but the name. The Japanese government will not opt for such a solution.

    Japan's population is likely to become ever smaller. In the beginning, the living standards would rise because of the smaller density and smaller consumption of natural resources. Even so, the country would drop from the list of the biggest economies. Eventually, the number of people could only level out if the fertility increased to 2,1. This can only be done by changing the mindset of the average citizen. If the government fails to change the people's attitude to having children, then before 300 years elapse, the Japanese population will have shrunk to 300.

    Japan's plight is shared by all developed countries in Asia and Europe. The world likes to portrait Japan as a case on its own, and economists and politicians prefer to ignore demographic reality. Europe is trying to solve the problem by importing Third World people. It is a weird reversed colonization experiment. What an irony! The French elites were not able to rule over the Algerians in Algiers, now they are trying to manage the Algerian population in Paris. There is no reason to believe the outcome will be much different. China will join the club of shrinking population countries between 2025 and 2030. The developed countries have to be prepared for a Japanese scenario on a global scale. And one should be warned, the Keynesian theory, the Modern Money Theory or the Austrian school of economic thought will not have a solution for the current economic state of affairs.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    22,009
    At least they will go out as Japanese not musloids.
    Proud Infidel...............and Cracker

    Member: Nowski Brigade

    Deplorable


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    52,703
    I don't think 300 people in an entire country could mount a very effective defense ...
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    I don't think 300 people in an entire country could mount a very effective defense ...
    I think that problem will manifest WAY before they get down that low...

    Summerthyme

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    52,703
    I agree ...
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    I don't think 300 people in an entire country could mount a very effective defense ...
    It might do pretty well against an attacking force of 50.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    2,827
    Its a unnerving to think in a modern first world that those who are most capable of raising children are having the least if any.......

    .....and those least capable of raising children in such an environment are having the most.

    This dilemma could only lead to a very few elite running a large segment of masses of economic slaves........world wide feudalism..........

  8. #8

    300 too many that will have lasted 300 years too long, IMHO.

    Howdy, Folks!

    Interesting thread, considering today's date.

    Relevant thread:

    http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?528455

    My dad was there.

    Among other things, Hirohito should have been executed as a war criminal.

    Peace and Love,

    Donald Shimoda

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    33,296
    The problem is the fools within the government working with the economic models will not let go of it realizing its not working.
    Seriously they have an old model thats based on an ever increasing population to pay for everything.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    location, location...
    Posts
    5,556
    I'll admit it's a strange data point, but I read last year that the Japanese porn industry has a REALLY difficult time finding men to "participate" in the "productions". Something like only a dozen guys for the whole industry. Not that I'm gonna promote porn as a good thing, but there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with a country that can't find enough men in that particular industry.

    Too much Soy and generational trauma just flat-out kills Testosterone I guess.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    33,296
    It started back in the mid 1990s when the Japanese government first realized their population was dropping in numbers.
    A few years later the trend continued and by 2003 they began to worry as it was pointing to monetary social system collapse in the near future.
    People are not making babies by the basket load to replace the old and dying, in fact the population is dying off faster than their being replaced with new kids.
    Its the Hidden Powers That Be dream come true, its just there is no profit to be gained from it.

    Parts of Europe was talking about the same problem but not making as big an issue of it.

  12. #12
    Perhaps the better way to look at this "dilemma" - ALL western first-world nations are in population decline. No news, there.

    IF the author/analysts economic perspective is all about endless pedal-to-the-metal grow, Grow, GROW, then all the author/analysts will "interpret/see" is "Japan in population decline."

    Wring hands, and repeat the "warning."

    Why don't we cook up a sustainable economic model that accommodates declining first-world populations, rather than viewing it as a threat?

    As mentioned in the article, there are all sorts of other forces at work within a given first-world culture (all of the western nations) that are discouraging the formation of sustainable and healthy families - MUCH can be implemented/rethought/rewickered to begin the reversal of this cultural trend.

    If all one has is a hammer, everything will look like a nail.

    YMMV.


    intothegoodnight
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    — Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    52,703
    I read last year that the Japanese porn industry has a REALLY difficult time finding men to "participate" in the "productions"

    Now that would make an interesting economic/social index for some underworked economist to start tracking
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark D View Post
    I'll admit it's a strange data point, but I read last year that the Japanese porn industry has a REALLY difficult time finding men to "participate" in the "productions". Something like only a dozen guys for the whole industry. Not that I'm gonna promote porn as a good thing, but there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with a country that can't find enough men in that particular industry.

    Too much soy and generational trauma just flat-out kills Testosterone, I guess.
    Industrial pollutants, fluoride, BPA plastics that release estrogen mimics into the food/drink items contained within, vaccinations, perhaps modern wireless communication systems - all have been discussed as a possible contributing factor behind the recent "momma's boy" phenomena, particularly noticeable in the millennial generation, but not exclusive.

    Not a peep out of the Food and Drug agency, nor the EPA, nor the CDC - particularly with regard to BPA plastics and its ability to impact the human body hormonal balance - particulary in males.


    intothegoodnight
    Last edited by intothatgoodnight; 12-07-2017 at 06:13 PM.
    "Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

    — Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"

  15. #15
    Japan may not be here in 300 years if they don't do something about Fukushima very soon.

  16. #16
    A simple thing for the .Gov's around the world to cure. 1)Cut off all welfare 2)give huge tax credits, applicable only to those paying INCOME tax, for having children.

    It will turn around. Nobody likes paying taxes, especially the rich!

    Southside

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Yogizorch View Post
    Japan may not be here in 300 years if they don't do something about Fukushima very soon.
    Yes. Without mentioning Fukushima, the entire article is seriously flawed. Japanese doctors are currently under heavy pressure not to diagnose or even mention radiation-related diseases. These health effects (and associated costs), combined with the inevitable genetic mutations, will doom Japan going forward.

    Best regards
    Doc

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    52,703
    Embedded links at the original ...
    ====================

    http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=12227

    Family Friendly
    By thezman
    December 4, 2017

    If science suddenly noticed that birds were laying fewer eggs, they would ring the alarm and warn of a coming bird-pocalypse. The assumption would be that humans were doing soemthing to make the birds unable to reproduce. The same would be true of any species that saw its fertility decline. The starting assumption of biology is that all living things are built primarily to reproduce. That is the biological imperative. With one exception, a drop in an animal’s fertility must be due to some exogenous factor. That exception is humans.

    In the West, human fertility rates have steadily fallen for over a half century. This is celebrated by our betters as the hallmark of human progress. Anytime the subject of fertility rates is raised, the knee-jerk response is to start hooting about women being more educated and having more options. The underlying assumption is that stupid people have lots of kids while smart people have few children. The implication of this is that the people who built Western Civilization were stupid, because they had high fertility rates.

    The whole “women are more educated” argument is not really an effort to understand why fertility rates, especially white fertility rates, have fallen. Rather, it is an effort to not understand it. It is a deliberate distraction, a way of shifting the focus from a problem that cannot be addressed by the Left, whether it is the materialist Left of Europe or the spiritual Left on America. To even acknowledge that the purpose of women is to have children gnaws at the extreme egalitarianism that animates the Western Left.

    To some degree, efforts to level off fertility in Europe make sense. There are lots of people on the Continent who don’t always get along with one another. Generations of warfare pounded home the message that stable societies, respectful of national borders, is the way to keep the peace. Keeping fertility rates at something just above replacement was an understandable goal. In America though, that’s not an issue. The country is mostly empty space with lots of room to expand. Americans should be breeding like Africans.

    It really is an odd thing that has happened in America over the last fifty years. Starting in the 1960’s, motherhood became something close to a badge of shame with our cognitive elites. This rather quickly oozed into the the upper classes and then the middle class. As a result, public policy has been altered to discourage childbearing. Just look at the hysterics from Progressive women anytime they don’t get their way. They immediately start howling about how they will not get easy access to abortions and free prophylactics.

    This came to mind when I saw a tweet by the left-wing political science professor George Hawley, commenting on the GOP tax bill. He linked to an essay he posted about public policy and fertility rates. For those familiar with this territory, the points he makes and the errors he commits are all familiar. France may have a TFR of 2.08, but the French people do not have that TFR. The invader population has rocket high fertility rates, but the French, well, not so much. Steve Sailer touched on one aspect of this in a Taki post.

    A similar pattern, though less pronounced, is seen in the US. White fertility rates are below replacement, while black fertility is still above replacement. Although the homicide rates among blacks probably requires a different definition of “replacement.” Hispanics have the highest fertility rates. In other words, simply looking at TFR for a country that is slowly being overrun by a third world population will lead to errors. In majority white countries, the salient issue is not TFR, but white fertility rates, relative to the whole.

    Putting that aside, we return to the original question. Two questions, actually. Is it simply that whites are choosing to die out or have whites simply wandered down a cul-de-sac, in terms of public policy, that is having adverse effects on white fertility? One way to tease this out is something that Steve Sailer did after the 2012 election. He looked at how white women voted, relative to their marriage habits. In places where white women can and do marry, stay married and raise children, whites vote Republican.

    Another way of putting this is that where affordable family formation is highest, you get more families. Despite being run by a cult, Utah is a wonderful place to raise a family. It is like the set of Leave It To Beaver, but the size of a European country. At the other end, a state like Massachusetts is wildly expensive and hostile to family formation. Those who do choose to marry and start families, often move to other states. The decades long migration, north to south and east to west, has largely been driven by cost of living.

    None of this answers the basic question. Is it crackpot public policy driving down white fertility or is some weird desire for extinction? The latter is impossible to know, so the prudent course is to assume the former is the correct answer. That’s basic logic. This means any movement that is explicitly for preserving the nation’s racial character should promote public policies that are explicitly and overtly pro-family. That is the part of Hawley’s post that is correct. The GOP should be fanatically pro-family, not pro-business.

    This especially holds for the dissident right. The alt-right is all over the map on public policy, because they get bogged down squabbling over aesthetics. Oddly, the best thing they could do, in terms of “optics”, is cast themselves as the extreme end of the pro-family spectrum. Redefining pro-women to mean pro-mother would go a long way toward rallying white Americans to their cause. After all, being for something always trumps being against something, even when the thing you oppose is awful. Positive always beats negative.

    This post has already been linked to 2760 times!
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Riding my Harley
    Posts
    3,944
    The USA has not been reproducing very well either, and my family hasn't done well on reproducing.
    My mom is one of only 2 kids, and her brother never had children.
    My mom only had 3 kids
    My wife has a single sibling, he only has 2 kids
    We had 3 kids, one of which died at 10. Oldest has no children. Middle child has only 2 children, so my family line is barely maintaining replacement rate.
    My grandson is the only remaining male that can carry on the family name. Should he not reproduce, or only have girls, our name dies out with him.
    Patriot Guard rider
    www.patriotguard.org

  20. #20
    While the result is the same and some of the issues are the same all over the Western World and Japan; each place is also a bit different.

    I've had a number of Japanese housemates/roommates (all in the late 1970's and all women from youth to middle-age); what I learned directly from them and from follow up research is that for the most part, Japanese women have tons to lose in marriage and not much to gain.

    The article is correct that the culture isn't child "friendly" but it is worse than that; women who marry are expected to quit work (if they possibly can) live in a tiny apartment (if they are from a Tokyo or a large city) often hours away from their husband's jobs.

    Once the short honeymoon period is over, life consists largely of seeing hubby leave at 5 am (after fixing him a nice breakfast) creating that one very-special child (for whom you are now socially expected to be The Perfect Mother of the Perfect Child or else) and greeting hubby when he gets in at 9pm or later because he is required to go "drink with the boys after work" to keep his job; and the following commute is so long.

    Meanwhile, when Perfect Child is born, her life is to revolve around them (not so much about hubby she never see's him except on Sunday - maybe if he isn't doing the expected overtime); she is supposed to be obsessed with finding the Perfect School, making The Perfect Lunch and finding the Perfect Activities for the little Emperor or Empress.

    When her one and only darling goes off to college, she finds herself alone; often still in the same apartment with few outside friends and the husband she never sees (who by now probably has a huge porn collection).

    Meanwhile, the girls who stay single and are lucky enough to have real professional careers (not everyone gets one but many do) get to keep their money for themselves (married women are also in charge of the money that is different from the US tradition but they mostly have to spend it on others). Career women sometimes get free or subsidized housing if they work for a big company, they tend to have lots of friends, can do what they wish outside of working hours including taking their boyfriends to a "love motel" - with a lot less stigma than you would have in the West (there is some social disapproval but not all that much).

    This situation has actually gotten worse, rather than better than in the 1970's when my 40 something roommate explained why her company was paying her way to learn English; but the downside was she had to live in the unmarried women's dorm for her company and could only see her boyfriend at the "love-hotel" a couple of times a month; still she felt "luckier" than the married women she knew.

    Today, I'm not sure if the single working-women's dorms are still around, but the number of women who bother to marry at all is continuing to lower because many don't see why they should sign up for such a lonely life if they don't have to; and a growing number of Japanese men wonder why they should take on the expense of a wife (who will make all the big financial decisions with his money, that's traditional) and child; that they also never see when they have great porn and "professionals" if they want sex.

    And, both working sexes can "pair bond" but without starting a home and family, simply by being "boyfriend and girlfriend" pretty much forever.

    It still boils down mostly to money and economics; the same reasons people in the West are not having kids - they are now an economic negative on a personal level rather than a positive.

    That does not mean parents don't love them or don't want them; but it isn't like the days of most people being small farmers or craftsmen; and each child another set of helping hands to do the work or learn the trade; instead each child is another drain on the one or two salaries of the adults.

    People then make personal choices (often) to have; one, two or perhaps no children at all...and the result is Japan just being a few years ahead of places like the US and Italy.
    expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    A rough neighborhood in Hell.
    Posts
    7,458
    Japan will probably be one of the last true NATIONAL races on earth, due to it's island and isolationist immigrant status. Will they allow themselves to dwindle to nothing? I doubt it, as the economical playing field is leveled through choas and crisis, standard of living, and EXPECTANCY goes down, and the under educated start shitting shitlits.

    on that note, I doubt anyone in the CONUS ill consider themselves americans (USAMERICANS) as we will have balkind far before. Just guessing, but 300 years i a long time.
    If I was born in Kenya, I'd be President by now.

    *My fingers are slysdexic. Damn.*
    They're, there, their. There. I know the difference. My mind is miles and miles of thought ahead of my fingers and my fingers are peons. peons do sh!tty work.:D

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    4,774
    The declining fertility rate in the US (at least) is really simple to understand. Back in the 60's when the economy began changing so that families required both parents to work just to get by, the nuclear family concept saw its doom. I had only two, and went to work to help support them. I should have have three or four, but it just wasn't possible with what we were making.

    Other factors are: The educational system. Changing the entire system so that the goal is not educating the children to their best outcome but instead making sure that the ONLY acceptable outcome is going to college. So, fast forward to the present, add in some major economic shifts, i.e. the ever-expanding-population base necessary for capitalism to work (in its current vulture-capitalism model, thanks bean counters), the reduction of adequate jobs for that ever-expanding population base, outsourcing, cheap imported goods, and we are where we are.

    And then into that mix comes the increasing difficulty of women to achieve viable pregnancies (pollution, promiscuity, drugs, waiting too long? who knows) without high-tech medical intervention. Boom! That leaves the majority of reproducing women are those genetics or cultures don't encourage stress about the outcome of their children. What a mess.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Klamath County, Oregon
    Posts
    9,014
    I have three children (all daughters). I have four grandchildren, and it's very possible that that's all the grandchildren I will ever have (they all belong to oldest daughter; middle daughter has been trying for twelve years, with one miscarriage to show for it; youngest is severely mentally handicapped and has other health problems and Lord willing will never be in a position where children are even a possibility). Of those four grandchildren, I'm not sure any of them have any desire at the moment to get married and have children, and they range in age from twelve to almost nineteen.

    In my opinion, part of the problem is that people are waiting longer to get married -- okay, re-phrase that -- WOMEN are waiting longer to get married. A man can marry at forty or forty-five, if he really wants to wait that long, and still be reasonably sure of being able to father children. A woman at that age is taking a big chance. Even waiting until the late twenties is increasing the chances of infertility (my middle daughter, the one who has been trying to get pregnant for twelve years, married at twenty-seven. I don't criticize her for waiting that long, because she was waiting for the right man to come along, and eventually he did -- he's a great guy. But it's very likely that if he had come along a few years earlier, they might have been able to have the family they badly want.).

    The other part of the problem is that marriage, man and woman marriage, is being made very unappealing to young people. In my grandchildrens' case, their parents' issues have contributed to their unwillingness to get married, but they are also getting all kinds of left-wing C--P in school, in their videos and manga and anime and games and movies and every other part of their culture. The fifteen-year-old granddaughter who is living with me asked me the other day if I would be okay with her dating another woman (she knows I'm a Christian). This is what is being ENCOURAGED and TAUGHT in nearly every aspect of our culture, and if you disagree with it, you are very uncool to say the least. I don't know what it's going to take to reverse this (definitely a lot of prayer on the knees) but I'm afraid it's going to take a major catastrophe, and do these young people have what it takes to survive?

    Kathleen
    Behold, these are the mere edges of His ways, and how small a whisper we hear of Him.
    Job 26:14

    wickr ID freeholder45

  24. #24
    Zackry disease.

  25. #25
    I think the aspect of expecting all children to go to college is playing a factor in a different way.....parents nowadays feel they MUST pay for all college expenses, and so saving $100k per kid within 18yrs....$200k for 2 kids.....etc, is overwhelming parents. And they feel in order to give the kid or kids they have a leg up, they must have fewer kids, so they can afford college. I'm mid 40's and have seen this among my peers!

    Also....it seems to me that there is a higher level of infertility among women born in the 80's. Anyone else see that? And we were military....so we were surrounded by 22-24 yr olds, married, and trying to have kids (ie, women around us weren't waiting till late 30's to get pregnant). It just seemed that those born in the 70's had an easier time conceiving than those born in the 80's, in my unscientific, undocumented perception. Plastic bottles from the 1980's????!!!

  26. #26
    My dads mom was one of 23 children, of which only 3 married (some died young, killed in wars etc., and some remained single by choice). My dads father was one of 12 children, of which 2 married (him and my gram and his sister married my grandmothers brother - so the gene pool was tight). Of those 35 people there was a total of 4 offspring. My grandmother despite being pregnant 11 times, only had my father survive to term.

    Fast forward and my father had 3 kids. His genetically close male cousins had 2 each, the other female to marry had 1 girl. Although a huge decline initially, the 4 kids produced 8. 3 of these 8 never had any children. The entire group had 8 kids total, that's half replacement level after a huge drop 3 generations before. I honestly don't know how many kids are around from my dads cousins side, but last I know similar to our family.

    My grandmother was born in the 1890's. The question is how is the line doing now?

    My fathers 3 kids had a total of 3 kids. and those three kids have had 4 total. But two of them are mentally challenged and will most likely never ever be parents. So we have 2 viable potential future "stock" so to speak. Except, the oldest at 25 lives with his girlfriend and they have zero intent of producing kids (made sure), until the student loans and etc can be dealt with. That is decades down the road. The other is a 16 year old girl and who knows her future.

    Our family name died when my brothers son had one female and that's it. Other brother has no children.

    Five generations in 110 years and we now have only two potentials to carry on. Not looking good.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    26,025
    Quote Originally Posted by intothatgoodnight View Post
    Industrial pollutants, fluoride, BPA plastics that release estrogen mimics into the food/drink items contained within, vaccinations, perhaps modern wireless communication systems - all have been discussed as a possible contributing factor behind the recent "momma's boy" phenomena, particularly noticeable in the millennial generation, but not exclusive.

    Not a peep out of the Food and Drug agency, nor the EPA, nor the CDC - particularly with regard to BPA plastics and its ability to impact the human body hormonal balance - particulary in males.


    intothegoodnight
    I used to WONDER why the Bible, in talking of those who "would NOT inherit the Kingdom of God", included specificallyt, among others in a long list, the effeminate:

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (i.e. homosexuals), Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    I Corinthians 6: 9-10
    Be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled…Let no man deceive you by any means…..
    they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved….for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie….
    Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    in the bunker
    Posts
    1,118
    Changing face of humanity. I want see data about white America.

  29. #29
    Howdy, Folks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Redcat View Post
    My dads mom was one of 23 children, of which only 3 married (some died young, killed in wars etc., and some remained single by choice). My dads father was one of 12 children, of which 2 married (him and my gram and his sister married my grandmothers brother - so the gene pool was tight). Of those 35 people there was a total of 4 offspring. My grandmother despite being pregnant 11 times, only had my father survive to term.

    Fast forward and my father had 3 kids. His genetically close male cousins had 2 each, the other female to marry had 1 girl. Although a huge decline initially, the 4 kids produced 8. 3 of these 8 never had any children. The entire group had 8 kids total, that's half replacement level after a huge drop 3 generations before. I honestly don't know how many kids are around from my dads cousins side, but last I know similar to our family.

    My grandmother was born in the 1890's. The question is how is the line doing now?

    My fathers 3 kids had a total of 3 kids. and those three kids have had 4 total. But two of them are mentally challenged and will most likely never ever be parents. So we have 2 viable potential future "stock" so to speak. Except, the oldest at 25 lives with his girlfriend and they have zero intent of producing kids (made sure), until the student loans and etc can be dealt with. That is decades down the road. The other is a 16 year old girl and who knows her future.

    Our family name died when my brothers son had one female and that's it. Other brother has no children.

    Five generations in 110 years and we now have only two potentials to carry on. Not looking good.


    Your post made me think of this:

    https://local.theonion.com/last-male...apt-1819572797

    I know The Onion is satire, but still...what have we become?

    Peace and Love,

    Donald Shimoda

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    4,774
    Also....it seems to me that there is a higher level of infertility among women born in the 80's. Anyone else see that? And we were military....so we were surrounded by 22-24 yr olds, married, and trying to have kids (ie, women around us weren't waiting till late 30's to get pregnant). It just seemed that those born in the 70's had an easier time conceiving than those born in the 80's, in my unscientific, undocumented perception.
    In the 50's and 60's the rate of spontaneous abortion in the US was 1 in 7. Granted, in those days it was common not to broadcast a pregnancy until it had reached the 4th month, settled in as it were, and there were probably many miscarriages that were never reported. Nowadays the rate of spontaneous abortion in the US is 15 to 20 percent. That's quite a jump.

  31. #31
    When I was a young woman in the 1970's you didn't report a pregnancy until the fourth month (usually) because 8 times out of 10 women didn't know she was pregnant.

    Early testing didn't always work and really did involve having a rabbit die, hence the old line "the rabbit died" for "I'm having a baby."

    Experienced mothers could often be fairly sure they (or their adult daughter showing symptoms) because of the way they felt, but that wasn't conclusive either.

    I always get a kick out of modern historical novels that have the leading lady knowing she is pregnant at 1 month; no one knew they were pregnant at one month outside of a hospital or with a rather expensive and not always accurate test. It was only usually done in really serious cases like a woman needing radiation treatment or something that might affect an unborn child.

    If you look in old cookbooks there are often recipes for "bringing down the courses" which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't but even the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages didn't pay much attention to these "cures" because it was widely believed that a women knew for certain she was pregnant when the baby quickened or moved; which can be as much as six months along; though most experienced mothers would know before then.

    The "bringing down the courses" was officially to keep women from "being stopped up" but in reality were often forms of very early trimester abortions; which also happen naturally much more often than used to be realized.

    But women were not considered to be having "abortions" if they drank their medications to "keep them regular" because pregnancy could not be certain that early on before modern technology (like late 1970's)..
    expatriate Californian living in rural Ireland with husband, dogs, horses. garden and many, many cats

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by willowlady View Post
    In the 50's and 60's the rate of spontaneous abortion in the US was 1 in 7. Granted, in those days it was common not to broadcast a pregnancy until it had reached the 4th month, settled in as it were, and there were probably many miscarriages that were never reported. Nowadays the rate of spontaneous abortion in the US is 15 to 20 percent. That's quite a jump.
    I guess I'm not specifically talking about the miscarriage rate....though yes, we definitely know for sure earlier now that we are pregnant or were pregnant. What I was talking about were women who could not conceive. Or who only conceived via clomid or ivf, etc. Many many many of my younger friends/family could not conceive on their own, without some sort of medical help. It seemed more so than in my own peer group. I'm trying to think of anyone within 5-6 yrs of me, if they had external help....but I'm thinking of less than a handful. Whereas women born in the 80's....it seems overwhelming, the amount with fertility issues. Just in the people I know from high school, college, churches, 4 duty stations, etc....people known in the last 25 yrs....people who would've openly shared their struggles with fertility.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.