Russias population on a decline

Chaniyth · Post by **Chaniyth** » Wed May 10, 2006 2:48 pm

Russia's declining population is the biggest problem the nation faces today, President Vladimir Putin has said.

In an annual address to the nation, Mr Putin said falling birth rates and the rise in mortality made Russia's demographic situation "critical". He also outlined a national programme to encourage women to have more children, pledging more state help.

Read More

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Wed May 10, 2006 3:04 pm

In Soviet Russia, population decline YOU!

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Wed May 10, 2006 3:44 pm

Sounds good to me. The less people, the better.

Dark Schneider · Post by **Dark Schneider** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:24 pm

Don't most of the Western nations have declining populations as well?

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:24 pm

Dark Schneider wrote:Don't most of the Western nations have declining populations as well?

Not to the same degree Russia is, which based on the article has a roughly .5% decline.

Post by **Roofus** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:27 pm

Dark Schneider wrote:Don't most of the Western nations have declining populations as well?

I believe Japan is the only other country with an actual decline. Most of the others are growing so slowly that within 50 years they will be in decline.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:30 pm

I think it's birth rates that are in decline in most industrialized nations, not population.

CKRNZ · Post by **CKRNZ** » Thu May 11, 2006 2:56 am

give em some foodstamps vlad!..and ill donate the sperm!

Post by **Tyne** » Thu May 11, 2006 10:23 am

send me over there, I'll raise it a couple of notches eh eh eh

edit: giggity!

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Thu May 11, 2006 11:39 am

Well, I guess that's what happens when you base your economic system on the assumption of population growth (think social security.)

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Thu May 11, 2006 2:19 pm

404NotFound wrote:Well, I guess that's what happens when you base your economic system on the assumption of population growth (think social security.)

I was just thinking again about that the other day. A portion of the way the economy works in much of the world is based on the belief populations can't max out.

So... Yay for pyramid schemes.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Thu May 11, 2006 8:06 pm

Yeah, Social Security isn't that far removed from the stock market in that respect. Both are run under the assumption that the overall value is going to increase perpetually. This doesn't tie into population directly, but there's presumably a labor exploitation factor in there somewhere...

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Thu May 11, 2006 8:22 pm

Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:03 pm

jaredfogle wrote:Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?

On a long enough timeline, yes (yay fightclub) but that timeline is getting longer and longer.

Post by **Roofus** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:49 pm

jaredfogle wrote:Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?

That's deep, man.

jaredfogle · Post by **jaredfogle** » Thu May 11, 2006 10:04 pm

404NotFound wrote:
jaredfogle wrote:Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?
On a long enough timeline, yes (yay fightclub) but that timeline is getting longer and longer.

Yeah but the societal value timeline doesn't seem to extend along with medical innovations.

I personally think that old folks are valuable, but not really in an economic sense.

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Thu May 11, 2006 11:20 pm

jaredfogle wrote:
404NotFound wrote:
jaredfogle wrote:Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?
On a long enough timeline, yes (yay fightclub) but that timeline is getting longer and longer.
Yeah but the societal value timeline doesn't seem to extend along with medical innovations.

I personally think that old folks are valuable, but not really in an economic sense.

By "societal value timeline" you mean retirement age, right? That I somewhat agree with. I think it's extended a bit, sometimes even by choice to keep the mind working, but overall I think that people probably could work longer and be alright. Lifespans on average have gone up, but that's not to say that somebody who doesn't take care of themselves won't kick the bucket before they ever reach retirement.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Fri May 12, 2006 12:34 am

jaredfogle wrote:
404NotFound wrote:
jaredfogle wrote:Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?
On a long enough timeline, yes (yay fightclub) but that timeline is getting longer and longer.
Yeah but the societal value timeline doesn't seem to extend along with medical innovations.

I personally think that old folks are valuable, but not really in an economic sense.

Then for what? Glue?

I'm kidding. I'm tired. Ignore me.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Fri May 12, 2006 1:53 pm

toastman wrote:
jaredfogle wrote:
404NotFound wrote:
jaredfogle wrote:Isn't the mortality rate 100% and always has been?
On a long enough timeline, yes (yay fightclub) but that timeline is getting longer and longer.
Yeah but the societal value timeline doesn't seem to extend along with medical innovations.

I personally think that old folks are valuable, but not really in an economic sense.
Then for what? Glue?

I'm kidding. I'm tired. Ignore me.

They're a useful source of ear and nose hair.