08-15-07, 10:01 PM #1
How or does birth control affect history?
Anyone know anything about this?
08-15-07, 10:20 PM #2
Regarding the sociological aspects and impact of the convenience and acceptance of the drugs/methods?
Regarding the philosophical aspect who will be, will not be or would not have been born?
Regarding the social and natural impact of the population and resource control/utilization?
Please elaborate and be more specific about what you are looking for.
08-16-07, 08:00 PM #3
Contraception for women can be seen as one of the many technologies of the postwar era that changed women's lives, such as the proliferation of appliances that took over time-consuming household chores like laundry. This was part of a larger pattern of freeing women from traditional gender roles. Women went to work. Their daughters went to college. Divorce became more common and more acceptable.
08-16-07, 08:02 PM #4
and now we live longer because we aren't dieing from having child after child after child...
08-16-07, 08:03 PM #5
08-16-07, 08:25 PM #6
Women in the workforce is the obvious example, but another interesting effect has to do with abortion (to the extent that you consider that "birth control"). Fewer unwanted babies means fewer kids growing up in bad conditions, which in turn results in a lower crime rate. Regular birth control, then, should have a similar effect.
08-16-07, 08:58 PM #7
Do you think it will change the face of society? It seems like we are letting lots more immigrants than we did before birth control happened. Is there a connection or is this a red herring? Will generations of birth control tear up the fabric of society? What will society look like in the future based on the present.
08-16-07, 09:42 PM #8
08-16-07, 10:00 PM #9
Birth control gave rise to the sexual revolution. To the seperation of sex and reproduction. To feminism. To the destruction of traditional gender roles. Ultimately, it creates a dramatic drop in the birth rate which results in the death of the society that uses it as its members die off without reproducing (see Europe or Russia).
I predict that birth control pills will be outlawed in the near future. They'll decide they're not safe for some reason or other. But the real reason will be to pump up fertility rates. We obviously need condoms for safety reasons, but the "pill" is just too effective. Abortion rights will be seriously curtailed for the same reason.
08-16-07, 10:10 PM #10
Once the power to control birth was discovered, widely: the meaning of life expanded past "make as many babies as possible."
08-16-07, 11:44 PM #11
The ultimate result is death. Death for the individual, and, since they never got around to procreating, death to their family line, and death to the civilization that allows this to occur.
Perhaps this is how the meek shall inherit the earth.
08-17-07, 01:01 AM #12
08-17-07, 01:06 AM #13
08-17-07, 01:11 AM #14
08-17-07, 01:36 AM #15
In just the last four years, the United Nations has reduced its global population projection for 2050 by nearly one billion people. Other demographers expect that in the next few years the organization will be forced to lower its projections by yet another billion.
* Over the past 30 years, the average number of children born to women in the less-developed countries has fallen from 6.2 to 3.0 -- a decline of record-breaking speed.
* Although a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is needed just to replace current population, in Europe the fertility rate has dropped to 1.42 and in Japan to 1.43.
Spain has the world's lowest fertility rate -- at 1.15. Experts predict Europe will lose at least 100 million people by mid-century.
Due to immigration, the U.S. rate has gone from an average of 1.9 over the past quarter of a century to 2.0 now.
Some of the world's best demographers reportedly think it is possible that the world's population, rather than continuing to increase in the next century, will peak and then begin to decline.
The 1996 Revision of World Population Prospects, published by the United Nations Population Division, includes "low variant" projections that anticipate zero population growth for the world as a whole by 2040 and negative growth -- depopulation -- thereafter.
* Life expectancy at birth will rise to 81 in more developed regions of the globe and to 72 in least developed countries -- from 75 and 52, respectively, today.
* Births per woman in developed areas would fall from today's 1.5 to 1.4 in a decade -- and in the least developed areas from over 5 this decade to below 4 by 2010 and to below 2 by 2035.
* Based on these assumptions, global depopulation would commence in a little over four decades -- falling by about 85 million between 2040 and 2050.
* From then on, world population would shrink by about 25 percent with each successive generation.
So, world population begins decreasing by 25% with each generation? Where does that lead? To extinction. As Roger Waters said, "This species has amused itself to death"
If the cure to sustain the natural drive to reproduce is the elimination of birth control then I highly doubt we need other medicines like viagra to enhance it. I am going to go ahead and say that your current prediction of birth control being outlawed is wrong. If birth control is outlawed then viagra will be too. Birth control might prevent natural reproduction from happening, but viagra messes with natural selection. If you can't get it up long enough to have sex let alone impregnate someone, then you probably are not made to reproduce.
The civilizations that can afford and employ birth control are in no danger of dieing out, otherwise birth control would not be needed.
As for carrying out the family name, not everyone can have children or father children which is why civilizations or family lines have been dieing out looong before birth control even came into effect so I don't see how it's elimination will make much difference.I also doubt abortion will be outlawed either seeing as the need for it has sustained itself for centuries. Birth control allows both women and men choices. The oppertunity to choose when to have a child (if they can), to protect themselves and their unborn children from undesirable or even miserable circumstances, and to prevent overpopulation by lack of education.
Sex, drugs, and rock and roll are great, but birth control has a more substantial place in society then that. Birth control doesn't kill the drive to reproduce, it allows people to choose when they want to reproduce.
08-17-07, 02:46 AM #16
The world population, if it continues to grow at the same rate (it currently grows 6% every 5 years), will grow at the following rate:
2005: 6.47 billion
2010: 6.83 billion
2015: 7.24 billion
2020: 7.68 billion
2025: 8.14 billion
2030: 8.62 billion
2035: 9.14 billion
2040: 9.69 billion
2045: 10.27 billion
2050: 10.89 billion
2060: 12.24 billion
2070: 13.75 billion
2080: 15.45 billion
2090: 17.36 billion
2100: 19.50 billion
In the United States, the population growth rate is currently 0.92% (or 4.69% every 5 years). Its estimated population is 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.).
The US population, at its current rate, is expected to grow like this:
The birth rate in the United States is currently 14.14 births per 1000 people/year (or 4,181,678 births per year). The abortion rate in the United States is over 6 million per year. If abortions were to suddenly become illegal in the United States the birth rate would more than double, and the population growth rate would increase to approximately 2.52% (or 13.25% over 5 years).
Unless people protest to keep abortion legal, and unless they take mass trips to Canada or Mexico to get abortions out of the country, or go to illegal abortion clinics within the US, the population might grow like this:
And so you see, the United States population could dramatically grow if the birth rate received a sudden unexpected boost. As it currently stands, the United States is ALREADY suffering due to overpopulation. If anything, we should have LESS people than our current number. It is only due to rampant growth of the babyboomers and the Generation X that the US population is currently overpopulated.
In comparison, China's growth rate is only 0.58%, less than two-thirds of the United States. Indeed, in China birth rates have been dropping due to increased usage of condoms, the Pill and abortion. It is foreseeable that China will some day have a population growth rate of 0%, a stable growth rate with equal numbers of births and deaths, which will contribute to a stable economy.
In the United States, we support families who decide to have larger families, but what we don't realize is the drain that is on the economy. Overpopulation leads to unemployment, child welfare drains money from political coffers and other economic problems. Families need to be encouraged to have 2 or less children. Right now, women in the United States have an average of 2.08 children. We are very close to reaching a 2.00/female status quo, and maintaining it.
I am not going to quote everything in your post because that would just be annoying. You and I obviously have very different views on BC. I really don't see how you can say we are underpopulated no matter what statistics you quote at me and please define "we". "we" as in the world, US, Europe, one of the many other continents or countries within? What civilization is in danger of dieng off because of BC and abortion? Despite certain statistics, unless the sun fails to rise or the earth is blown up by an alien species, the human species is in no danger of dieing out. If you are talking about a specific race then please name the one you are concerned about. Secondly, I never used the word "unfair" once when talking about Viagra or BC. I just don't see how you can say that BC should be outlawed because it destroys "natural" reproduction when Viagra is equally "unnatural", that is flawed logic, my friend. Not only should we outlaw the ability to control unwanted births, but we should maintain a drug that will enhance them? Condoms are okay, but BC is not? So something that is not completely full-proof is acceptable, but something that is 99.9% effective should be banned?Different BC's have been known to cause blood clots in women, but Viagra has been known to cause cardiac arrest; there are risks and dangers with any type of medicine, but I don't see how they are in the same classification as cigarettes. Cigarettes serve no purpose except addiction and disease and maybe a buzz now and then if you are a light weight. I also don't see how you can say birth control is convenient. Most insurance plans won't cover it, so it's not as easy to get your hands on as you would think. Is it convenient for women who want to regulate their periods? Yes. Is it convenient for women who want to eliminate painful cramps, PMS, and spotting? Yes. Is it convenient for the men who refuse to wear condoms to protect their partners, but don't want and won't pay for children? Yes. What about a woman who is a virgin and taking BC specifically for the benefits I listed above? What if a woman is raped? You say BC is for people who want no consequences, but it's acutally for people taking the steps to prevent themselves and others from suffering consequences that are unnecessary. Taking responsibility for their actions. If they are going to have sex it might as well be safe sex, though BC does not protect against STD's, it prevents unwanted babies. You also said "Sex without consequences has consequences", but that doesn't even make sense. It's not even logical. You mention that civilizations are going to die out because of BC, but immigrants will take over because they are willing to reproduce. It's not just the immigrants who are in unfamiliar countries, but it's lack of funding and education every where and in poverty stricken areas. If BC and sex education was more readily available, then uneducated reproduction would not be a problem. You are saying that it is better to have a society filled with as many people as possible, no matter if they are wanted or unwanted, cared for or not cared for, paid for by state or by the actual parents then it is to have a society who is capable of planned and thought out pregnancies, reproducing when they are ready to, and raise children that will benefit society and contribute to our world. BC is not part of a decadent society. A decadent society is 1. characterized by decadence, esp. culturally or morally: a decadent life of excessive money and no sense of responsibility. BC is part of a culture and society trying to and willing to take responsibilty for their ability to reproduce and making sure that when they do it is the right time and place and that their off-spring will have what they need to grow and become a contribution to that society.
08-17-07, 10:57 AM #17
08-17-07, 03:21 PM #18
08-17-07, 11:40 PM #19
The US is no where near overpopulated. Have you driven across the country? It's mostly empty.
Oh yes, one other thing:
PARAGRAPHS ARE YOUR FRIEND!!!!! THEY MAKE YOUR POSTS MUCH MORE READABLE.
08-17-07, 11:50 PM #20
By lixluke in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 11-30-07, 03:00 PMReplies: 888
By nikosgt72 in forum PoliticsLast Post: 04-05-07, 08:54 AMReplies: 3
By Charles_Wong in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 12-31-06, 08:26 AMReplies: 47
By Brian Foley in forum HistoryLast Post: 09-05-05, 05:08 PMReplies: 265
By ghost7584 in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 06-20-05, 09:59 AMReplies: 73