HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:01 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
The dearth of babies affects nearly every developed country. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Canada, the United States, Brazil....and many others besides have a fertility rate below what is necessary (anything below 2.1) to sustain population levels.


CIA Worldfactbook
And now there are even more countries below 2. From the top of my head, France and Argentina. As a whole, Americas, Europe, East Asia and Oceania are all below replacement level.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:07 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Cities like New York, London (UK) and Tokyo have long relied on immigration from the hinterlands to maintain/grow population. The difference now being that these cities draw from the four corners of the globe. I don't see much difference at the country level, especially in the New World, where most countries are populated primarily from descendants of immigrants.
I guess New York has always being about immigration, not from its domestic hinterland. And Tokyo relies even today on domestic migration.

About São Paulo, it went through several periods. Firstly it was fed by immigration (from the late 19th century to WWII), then from its close hinterland and from very distant parts of the country (Northeast Brazil) and since the 1990's, more people leave the metro area (retirees mostly) to the surroundings while youngsters move in. Moreover, São Paulo has a very strong natural growth (births minus deaths) as the decades of intense migration made its population young on child bearing age.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, do you know where we can search for births and deaths on US MSAs? They are an excelent source to identify the level of migration the area is getting. If births are going up, that's a strong indication migrants are coming or the opposite. We can look the past decade (2000-2010) and build patterns on it.

I made my own estimates for Brazilian metro areas using this method and they are incredibly accurate.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:09 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,486
Germany is interesting. A lot of the accelerated growth is from them suddenly deciding to be an immigrant nation after decades of refusing to be. There are also trends within that of rural areas emptying out as people continue to move to cities, as well as the still present trend of people leaving the poorer former East Germany and moving to wealthier portions of the country in the West. Though interestingly the fastest growing cities seem to now be in East Germany.

The US decline of growth is also interesting. Could anyone speak as to why it's occurring? I take it our favorite Republican president has a lot to do with it, cutting immigration levels even lower.. But why is this happening now, and not, say, under Bush in the 2000's?

Canada's growth rate has also accelerated over the last 5 years or so.. and where it's happening has shifted. Ontario is a friggen growth machine. 1.8% annual growth in an area of 14,000,000 people..

Also, areas of the country that traditionally were more or less flat or even shrinking have started to see population growth again, like the Maritime provinces. Nova Scotia seems set to pass 1,000,000 people in the next few years after languishing at the 950,000 mark for a generation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:29 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
^ Germany saw the writing on the wall with their demographic time bomb had they done nothing. One of my former professors (a futurist) held a conference over there a number years ago and presented a sobering picture of their population crash if current trends (at the time) had continued and I'm sure he was far from alone and apparently the right people were listening.

As for Canada, Toronto has had crazy Houston/ Dallas level growth and will probably surpass both cities anytime now. if not already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:37 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Germany is interesting. A lot of the accelerated growth is from them suddenly deciding to be an immigrant nation after decades of refusing to be. There are also trends within that of rural areas emptying out as people continue to move to cities, as well as the still present trend of people leaving the poorer former East Germany and moving to wealthier portions of the country in the West. Though interestingly the fastest growing cities seem to now be in East Germany.
And immigration itself boosts the number of births as they are usually people on child bearing age. Indeed Berlin and Leipzig is growing like crazy. Dresden is also doing fine. The rest, however, is collapsing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
The US decline of growth is also interesting. Could anyone speak as to why it's occurring? I take it our favorite Republican president has a lot to do with it, cutting immigration levels even lower.. But why is this happening now, and not, say, under Bush in the 2000's?
The US will face very challenging times. Its natural growth collapsed and there is no way back, as the number of deaths will skyrocket as baby boomers go past 80. They will need a 2 million immigration surplus to keep their traditional 2.5 million yearly increase.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 4:44 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
^ Germany saw the writing on the wall with their demographic time bomb had they done nothing. One of my former professors (a futurist) held a conference over there a number years ago and presented a sobering picture of their population crash if current trends (at the time) had continued and I'm sure he was far from alone and apparently the right people were listening.

As for Canada, Toronto has had crazy Houston/ Dallas level growth and will probably surpass both cities anytime now. if not already.
Atlanta fell behind, but Dallas MSA and Houston MSA managed to keep their spectacular high growth rate. They are still at 20% (2020-2010), while Toronto CMA is around 15% (2017-2007). Toronto might eventually jump ahead but there is no signs of it yet.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 6:21 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,167
What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 6:45 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.
I understand in the long run it's impossible to grow forever. Even a very small 5%/decade, would mean the population would grow 4-fold in less than 300 years. Not sustainable to think of a 32 billion people Earth by the year 2300.

However, thinking of today's society, population shrinking is very hard to deal with. I don't think Cleveland abnd Pittsburgh a better today with their 3.5 million and 2.5 million metro areas, instead of 7 million/5 million in case they had grown at the US average since the 1970 (or maybe more if they had a Sunbelt kind of growth). I'm pretty sure they will be much more vibrant and exciting urban centres than they are today.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 8:46 PM
jigglysquishy's Avatar
jigglysquishy jigglysquishy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 3,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.
Infinite growth is impossible. The first country to successfully adapt to no/negative population growth will complete upset the global paradigm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 10:25 PM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
Decades of below replacement birth rate is a distaster. A country cannot rely solely on immigration and still be healthy.

Yet immigration is the only option available.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2020, 11:47 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
What is so bad about slow growth or stagnation? It's unreasonable to expect perpetual growth, and the planet surely doesn't need more people. I'm personally very encouraged to see population slowing, and wish Africa would hurry up and join the rest of the world when it comes to this metric.

I get that we built our economies around growth, but that's entirely unsustainable. I've always found the Rust Belt intriguing for this reason. It's one of a few places in the developed world where growth has stopped, and shrinking at the regional level is even occurring in some metros (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Yet these cities appear to be hitting their strides once more and developing into better versions of themselves. Perhaps this region can provide lessons for how to adapt when the growth machine comes crashing down.
Amen. We are literally killing our planet with over population. The world would be a remarkably better place with 1 billion people instead of 8
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2020, 10:32 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Amen. We are literally killing our planet with over population. The world would be a remarkably better place with 1 billion people instead of 8
During the Napoleonic Wars the world had 1 billion people. And at least for humans, the 8 billion people Earth is a vastly superior place.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2020, 12:27 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,639
The Earth is a like a bank where you have maxed out your loans and withdrawals. We are living on borrowed time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 4:14 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 10,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
During the Napoleonic Wars the world had 1 billion people. And at least for humans, the 8 billion people Earth is a vastly superior place.
I'm assuming he means 1 billion with today's technology and social advancement.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 7:08 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
I'm assuming he means 1 billion with today's technology and social advancement.
Indeed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 9:28 AM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
I'm assuming he means 1 billion with today's technology and social advancement.
They're a bit tied together. If world's population collapse, picture how our cities would like, with the idle infrastructure everywhere, vacant houses, etc. And forget economies of scale. With much less people, some goods and services would be discontinued altogether due the lack of demand and we'll be poorer overall, with much of our needs left unmet.

From the environmental point of view, 1 billion people Earth would be better. But from mankind, definitely not.

In any case, world's population won't grow for much longer.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 2:24 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,639
If we accept that the world's population cannot grow indefinitely (and nature would never allow this), what then, is the optimal population, that would achieve a much better balance between human welfare (which is still atrocious for half or more of the world's citizens) and the planet's ecology (going to hell right before our eyes)?



I am going to say: something like 2 billion people at most. With at least 2/3 of the planet more or less off limits to resource exploitation; reserved for flora and fauna. With most of the 2 billion living in dense megacities (not sprawlsburgeria).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 2:53 PM
Razor Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,944
I remember an old college lecture, where our prof highlighted that the Earth can sustain 30 billion people.The problem is human management..That's 30 billion people spread out and not concentrated. 30 billion people spread out and on the same page would be fantastic really!..Think of the innovations and creations that would come out of such a large pool of humans. but sadly we would screw it up, like we have done and keep doing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 3:36 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,639
30 billion in appalling misery, given that we live on a finite planet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2020, 3:56 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,674
Get rid of the economic system. That's the only way. There is food, and physical resources on this finite planet. But we really aren't using the planet to its full potential and we base our everyday lives and functions on this false fabrication called a bartering/economic system. And we limit our species potential by this inherent limitation called money/financing when the only real limit to our potential is the ability for people to work and the processing power of their brains. But we have to tag a piece of compensation to the equation and further have this culture of materialism and barter and self-individuality fueled by selfishness to limit humans.

The Earth can support many more people, but would be increasingly strained if everyone for example lived the life of say the average American family.

Now, if we resume the current model, its fine and dandy for a certain % of the global population, but the rest, will suffer. Its up to the world to decide if it will accept this. Really, collectively, for the greater good of Earth and all its inhabitants... countries and this idea of country individuality will have to go away. There are no countries... there is just Earth, its resources, and its organisms.

This idea of countries is also yet another limitation towards the species, and causes suffering when we factor in the total population.

One can only wonder how far the species would become if we didn't set self restrictions on ourselves.

We still very much operate like a group of apes on the macro scale. The tribal mentality.

But that's why Earth also has checks and balances. Earth is very good at annihilating redundancies and punishing errors. Disturb the natural patterns of weather and temperature... sure... but Earth will wipe out a few million via the climate or via some drought or famine. Nature is not to be messed with. Pathogens, yet another check and balance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:52 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.