I agree - though we are expecting two grandchildren. It's great to be a Grandma!

Dont worry people, the birthrate is still outnumbering the deathrate. From this artical, it was stated that the birthrate fell to 13.4 per 1000........google deathrate per 1000 and you get this......

The crude death rate, the total number of deaths per year per 1000 people. As of July 2009^[update]the crude death rate for the whole world is about 8.37 per 1000 per year according to the current CIA World Factbook^[1].

There are already too many of us!!! Lets not panic about a declining population hehe

Obama being in the news and on my mind so much has made my thingy "hunker down".

Yeah, its a double whammy. Less people paying taxes, compounded with more people wanting to draw from the tax base that remains.

The only things I see birthing are the stupid and the stupid poor. Both groups should be sterilized and not even permitted to breed. Neither should the illegals (ANY of them) be permitted to produce anchor babies. you don't have proof of citizenship you and your b**tard child get kicked out. Go back to your already existing 3rd world country and stop turning America into a third world county (it's on the cusp as it is). All the ethiopians and kenyans do the same thing - breeding uncontrollably. I know - I work in a gov program that give these god awful kids free education.

They need to setup "one and done" when it comes to kids. NO MORE MULTIPLE child families. I don't care WHAT you come from, WHAT you are. You get one bloody kid - and you and spouse are sterilized.

One issue exists beyond all else in its threats and signficance to the very existence of the Earth's ability to give and sustain all life, the more and more of Earth consuming human populations. No danger, no issue possesses the horrific threat to utterly kill and change the fate of man and the EArth because man's existence depends upon the EArth's ecosystems' ability to sustain and support all life, and modern man is in the eco-nomics of killing ecosystems and the very strands in the web of all life. In the last 30 years, man has been on a roll in killing the Earth's ecosystems and biological diversity. In just 30, yrs. science predicts Earth will be a forest-less planet.

And, ecosystems are in the business of life itself, from the integrity of the very atmosphere, to the stability of the climate and its regulation, the nitrogen cycle, oxygen, the hydrological system and a long list of all and every reason man exists. No ecological systems, services and cycles are provided free gratis to man by cities, houses, apartments, tenements, freeways, supermarkets, schools, churches, and concrete, metals, stuccos, asphalt, glass and bricks are totally dead planet.

The more and more of the mushrooming human populations are plastering, chainsawing and bulldozing the Earth's natural, wild surface/ecosystems and biological diversity. with dead planet, as life giving and sustaining as the surface of Mars.

Top scientists have warned, that the extinctions of biological diversity are a dangerous threat to man's existence almost as threatening as global, thermonuclear war. And, many scientists are screaming, they have no models or analogues to these changes occurring globally, like oxygenless, dead zones in the EArth's seas, smaller and fewer fish, more diseased; beetles consuming forests, forests, grassland, chaparral and hardwoods going to housing tracts, roads, strip malls and the more and more death to the EArth.

Man must practice Zero Population Growth because many scientists already believe it is too late to save the atmosphere, the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems from Earth consuming humans. Man is as dependent upon the Earth's ecological systems, functions and services as are the fish of the sea and the birds of the air. They are not divorced from the natural, wild surface of the Earth and its wild, native species of animals and plants, and its cycles and systems though they seem to believe differently.

We cant afford to have kids anymore, and since you cant even discipline them without going to jail nowadays then why even bother?

To Greg in Oceanside, General Patton and the rest of the gang, bunch of selfish morons, holier than thou hypocrites, who made you judges and kings of the universe, how about when you guys were born, why were you born? and here no less in the great USA, many of you are living off the taxpayers, take for example "scooties rules" he works for the government, in a nice cozy job with multiples benefits, I bet all he does is sit around all day, talking crap with his friends while drinking coffee, and operating the copy machine, what about your kids and grandkids, is all a monopoly, live your lives and let other live theirs, worry about your families and let others survive the best they can, you morons, and keep working so you can keep feeding those poor souls, you lazy bastards, when are all immigrants heed my advice? and leave all at once, so that these morons loose their cozy jobs and benefits, LOL

Oh we wont lose our cozy jobs and benefits. We will just replace those uneducated, low skilled laborers with the uneducated, low skilled laborers that we already have here in the US that are currently drawing unemployment.
With the current handout system like it is, theres no excuse for not obtaining a college education, and working to better yourself. A good place would be actually learning the native language of the country which is hosting you.
You seem to be awfully passionate about this subject. Rather than ranting and calling people names on the internet,(which is ironically against the honor code for newsvine), why dont you pursue a career teaching immigrants in the US the English language and actually do the world some good?

OK! GI JOE, I guess I was a bit out of line there, by calling people names and breaking the sacred honor code for newsvine, my apologies to all those offended, please relay this message to General Patton and civilians involved in this act of verval war, however I stand by my comment, minus the name calling, indeed I was passionate. While writing the comment, my beautiful and sexy hot gorgeous, green eyes, pregnant wife was sitting on my lap, so I got carried away as I was thinking with my other head. LOL!

I didn't read that in the article.

Did you make it up?

Historically, birth rates have always been higher among the poor. This is due to so many factors, which vary by culture. Having a lot of children to support causes poverty in itself. Poorer people are more likely to marry young, and therefore have more fertile years. They're less likely to have access to resources and education with which to build a comfortable lifestyle. I would like to see an actual bell curve on average family size (Y axis) across income levels (X axis) in the U.S., where many of the poverty factors are mitigated.

No one told them not to breed in my neck of the woods. Every other woman one sees is preggers with 3 little kids trailing behind her and one in a stroller.

I would have to say that you love to fabricate stories. Nothing in this article states anything about class demographics.

Dee how do you know these women are unmarried and/or without employment? To be honest the only people I know with more than 2 children are homes where both parents are working. I have yet to encounter a non-working female with more than 2 children

Monae - I think you meant to direct your comment to veem. Dee only said she has seen a lot of pregnant women.

Veem - poor people generally have more kids because they lack information about and access to birth control. Also, in times of hardship social programs are the first to get cut and the poor rely heavily on clinics for healthcare.

Also, when you don't have money for vacations and movies and nights out and all the other things that alot of people enjoy, what else are you going to do but have sex?

We do have birth control out there you know!!! This world is looking very uncertain for the future. Are you sure you want to put a kid into this world? Just some food for thought....

Monae, come to Chicago. They are everywhere.

Visit the trailer parks and you tell me how many single women with multiple kids you see running around. Then go to the burbs, city, or wealthier areas and do another analysis. As much as the truth hurts the movie Idiocracy nailed this one on the head. Almost all of the middle class educated couples I know have waited till their early 30's to try to have children and most of them want 1 maybe 2 kids. Many of them have now ended up having problems with fertility.

Kornfed, how about some real food for the kids, no cornflakes please or else they'll turn out to be like you, Kornfed, lol!!

Of course the welfare recipients and the illegals are dropping babies at an ever increasing rate. After all, our welfare system is constructed in such a manner as to reward them for doing this.

Currently the situation in this country is that about half pay taxes and the other half not only pay nothing but receive generous entitlements. This dynamic cannot exist forever since the numbers that pay taxes will keep shrinking while the others numbers keep increasing.

Yeah, because restricting birthrates doesn't sound like Communism.

Sounds like China.

Hmm. You need a license to drive. You need a license to open almost any business. Almost all professional occupations require a license. So for the most important task any of us will undertake the only requirement is the ability to copulate? God forbid we require anyone to prove they're capable of raising and supporting a child.

I love you people who are against having children!! I have five children and 11 grandchildren and more are almost a certainty. My descendants will be happy to take up the space left by your lack of them as your bloodlines head down a straight, short road to extinction.

dnimerick,

We want to be extinct so we don't have to put up with the likes of you that litter this earth. Can't you see that we are running out of room? Do you not give a crap about this planet? Oh wait, no you wouldn't care since by the time this planet has had it with us, YOU will be dead. Of course you would see it that way. I'm sure your grandkids are just spoiled little brats that scream and get their way like most children these days do.

And who would give those licenses? I know from my encounters with friends and clients - most of the child services workers are single women with no children, giving advice on how to raise children. And yet dont see the irony of thier giving advice, and it being ignored, because they have no children.

Playboy, I believe it is only a privilege to have children and many people should never be parents because they blow it, are clueless as to what parenting constitutes. Our society submits people to taking tests before they drive and are even interviewed before adopting a pet, but some folks, offering the poorest quality of parenting, drop kids like flies, just because they can and possess nothing of quality parenting.

Rearing children successfully is truly one of life's most difficult jobs, and most are clueless!

Unbelievable, playboy and skor154 should be married since they seem to know so much about parenting and responsibilities, I bet their parents must be very proud of them, when was the last time a playboy gave lecture on parenting and family values, what is wrong with this crazy world? playboy get a real girl and stop fantasizing, skor154 are you a guy or a girl? either way, you appear to be in desperate need of a real relationship. lol!!

I agree. Shame on YOUR parents for having YOU.

Get your bill itemized and you'll be even more upset. Think $500/day room and board for the 100-square-foot room you share with two other laboring mothers. And when baby is born, add another $500 room and board, even though it is occupying the same space and consuming nothing but breastmilk. That does not include staff time or equipment costs. If you're insured, some of that will get consolidated, but of course you are paying extra in the premiums.

It defies the laws of supply/demand, because no one would *choose* to labor in those conditions at that price. But there is no room for market entry, where more affordable accommodations can be offered, because all hospitals are required to treat all emergencies patients. Childbirth is considered emergency care. So they have to recoup the costs of the freeloaders by charging paying customers 500% of the actual cost. And if you're insured, they try to reach that cost at 80% of your bill, because they know they'll get paid that portion. Your 20% may or may not get paid (they don't know your financial situation), but you're still billed for it (although it's excess) because of insurance policy.

As a mother of two, I won't recommend a midwife. The costs are more reasonable and the accommodations are better. But they usually don't offer the pain relief options, and childbirth is unimaginably painful for many. It'd be quite a feat to go through just to save money, but many people do.

I went to college and grad school and work for a great company whose insurance covers 100% of my childbirth. So... maybe you're not as smart as you are insisting you are?

No one says you have to give birth in the hospital. Have a home birth if you're so concerned with the cost. Some statistics say it's safer with less unnecessary medical intervention into the process. But if you want the peace of mind and you want the good pain killers, you have to pay for them.

Wow, mduckworth, you must be smarter than everyone, because you're the only person in the country who gets 100% coverage. Please tell us the name of your company and the type of policy you purchased, because if it's less than $500/month, I'm switching. Oh wait, is your health insurance called Medicaid??

Before you ask laboring women to go without pain killers, perhaps you should skip them when you get your next root canal or appendectomy. People gave birth and got surgeries without painkillers for years, but this is modern times. If we are paying outrageous insurance premiums and taxes to fund others' medical care (including good pain killers), then it's absurd that we should have to labor with a midwife to keep from going broke.

My out of pocket costs for having my son, was $250. I dont know where all these high prices come from. Oh, and I am educated with a good paying job, with PPO insurance... So it all depends on the company you work for (or if you are self-employed).

80 years ago almost all births were with the assistance of a Midwife worldwide....Today some 80% of all births outside the US are with midwifes. In Eureope the use of a Midwife is common. US is the only exception to the rule at about 5% using midwifes. The problem is we are a product of our own environment. Women scheduling c-sections just because they want the baby born on their time, instead of nature telling you when your ready. Then we got the overbearing medical community pushing OB's to deliever babies and skipping the midwife. Dr.s these day push C-sections because one, they cost 20K, instead of 3k...$$$$$$. And two because instead of the Dr sitting around for 4-6 hours helping you deliever, they can cut you and be done in 45 minutes.

Ironically, everyone I know who gave birth in a hospital says they were in excruciating pain while in labor. I did a home birth and it wasn't bad at all. All the accounts I have heard of other women who have had home births say the same. Maybe our pain management methods are actually better.

Home births are very risky. My stepdaughter gave birth at home. There were complications and the baby was born brain damaged and died three months later.

Ladies...go to the hospital to give birth.

Totally agree, Cindy. I know of one lady who attempted a home delivery and her baby was born dead. When a child's life is at risk, the experts should be there.

I had natural child birth in a hospital long ago and would not change the outcome.

I've had a friend who had a baby in the hospital that died at birth, and at least one that suffered brain damage. But I've never known or heard of someone having problems like that at home. Many people and I am one believe that the interventions you experience in the hospital even in a natural birth actually cause many complications. Statistically home births have less problems, but no one should choose a type of birth because of the cost. In fact that is rarely a concern for those who do choose to give birth at home or at a birth center.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/short/cmaj.081869v1

http://www.changesurfer.com/Hlth/homebirth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_birth

It has little to do with how good-paying your job is. It's mostly about how big your employer is. The bigger the employer, the better discounts they get on purchasing health insurance policies. I worked retail in college and made less than $10/hour. The health coverage was great. By the time I actually had kids, I made $30/hour at a small company and had a terrible insurance plan. I'm not going back to retail just for the insurance breaks. But it bothers me when people do not pay into any insurance plans and get free coverage. It backfires on people who actually do pay for medical care, and don't have the backup of multi-billion dollar corporations. Having the backup of some little-known company is almost as bad as being self-insured.

Jeff,

Perhaps nature abhors a vacuum.

With jobs not available, why would immigration be even allowed? H1B1 sponsors should be fined $75,000 per year for each worker they have brought in since Jan 1, 2009. And $15,000 per person that the guest worker brought in with them.

I have personally witnessed visiting parents of wealthy physicians shopping with food stamps and then getting into their Lexus. Workers were appalled. Maybe they bought the food stamps on the black market in Detroit, I do not know. But, the simple appearance helps creates a very bad reputation for certain nationalities who come here.

Amanda,

You are right in there today. I applaud you.

Have a great day!

I'm delaying have kids until I have a job where I am guaranteed maternity leave and adequate time off for doctor appointments both before and after the baby's born. I would love to have kids, but right now it's not a financially sound decision.

It breaks my heart to see parents who have other priorities than their kids' welfare. Many people who have tried to have kids but haven't succeeded yet would give anything to switch places with these parents who don't even seem to want their kids.

I work in a grocery store in an area that has a high percentage of low income individuals. It's not unusual for some girl a year or two out of high school to have one or two kids already. More than likely, she's receiving both WIC and food stamps to help support herself and the kids. If dad's around, more than likely he's emotionally immature and not ready to be a father when he's an overgrown child himself. The young mother is absolutely overwhelmed with dealing with young children. I only hope for her and the kids' sake that her parents are helping out.

There is definetly a difference in how individuals from socioeconomic backgrounds raise their kids. Both my parents were from middle class families and raised me in an affluent middle class environment. Neither smoke and only one had alcohol in extreme moderation, never in front of us until we were almost 18. They made sure we had clean clothes, three good meals, and that we behaved in public. The few times that my sister and I had tantrums in public as young resulted in a sharp word from my mother once we were in the car. We learned never to have tantrums in public again.

I had friends in high school whose parents were not as well off as my own. That was more the norm where I went to school. My mother taught and she said that she couldn't believe how many parents did not have money for their kids' school supplies and school lunches, but they had money to buy multiple packs of cigarettes a week and alcohol. She also could not believe the percentage that came to school in dirty clothes and without taking a shower. She had to tell one boy to quit making fun of one girl for being dirty because that wasn't really the girl's fault. These were the parents who didn't take much interest in their kid's education and were doomed to repeat their mother's example.

My wife and I have put back money for an abortion in case she ever gets pregnant.... and I would advise the rest of you to do the same.

and Kelly.... you were lucky. I think most parents these days are not only drinking and smoking, but looking to stronger drugs to get them through the rest of the child rearing process.

and what about those school taxes? Imagine my surprise when I bought my first house and come tax time, I am paying for OPC's (other people's children) to get a less than minimal education. What a world, what a world.

Why don't you and your wife just get sterilized? Makes more sense than putting money away for an abortion. Problem solved.

I've always wanted to hold up a fetus, scrunch up my face and say, "Does this kook like me?"

Have you considered getting certified for home daycare? I know a mother who did that when her husband left her, so that she could continue to be home with her kids and also support them.

As a matter of fact, terry, Mexico is experiencing a significant decline in births. I know. Facts are a #!%&.

Yeah, but that is in Mexico, not their new homeland where everything is borne by Natural citizens.

Good for you.

Yes, the Duggars will probably have more children and many people think that is ridiculous. However, if you've ever watched their program, those kids are extremely well-behaved, polite and hard-working than most American kids these days. Additionally, they are debt-free and do not get any government assistance whatsoever. So really, it's none of our business whether they continue having children. As long as they provide for their brood with their own money - I say let them be. The people who should NOT be allowed to continue to procreate would be those who are habitual government assistance abusers!

OFF TOPIC. The Duggars had their 15 minutes. Moving along........

rabiabar - Please don't throw out a religious explanation to a decrease in births. Births are happening....you can be sure of that. They have been declining for MANY years. Large families were great to help out on the farm. Now large corporations do that for us.

Religion......has been the cause of more death and oppression than any war or natural occurrence.

As to your last question, the answer is yes, welcome to the "Vine".

It's more of a distribution problem than a population problem. Therefore, a declining birthrate won't solve the problem.

Sustainable agriculture and energy should be a priority, and whatever birthrate falls into those capabilities. Resources are not necessarily finite.

Yeah, Steve, yours is the finest post, most intelligent post on this article and issue. Yes, Dr. Erhlich's seminal book helped kick off the environmental movement long ago. For awhile, his treatise was on the frontburner of the environmental movement. He is soooo ecologically astute. Must reading, his, "The causes and consequences of extinction" as he articulates the science of ecology.

The science of ecology dictates all the hows and whys the EArth creates, supports and sustains all life. Man only exists because of the EArth's ecosystems, and ecosystems are created and life giving and sustaining because of the diversity of their native, wild animals and plants or biological diversity. Modern man is in the eco-nomics of killing the Earth's ecosystems and pushing extinct ecosystems' biological diversity, which Dr. Erhlich compares as a danger almost as threatening as thermonuclear war.

Science is ringing the red alert, that business is not as usual on the Earth, and they have no models, no analogues concerning these changes, like the Earth is possibly losing the ability to sequester C02, and the EArth in just a few years, will be a forestless planet, and more and more of the oceans are becoming oxygen-less, dead zones, and the scrambling climate.

After all, the EArth's ecosystems regulate the climate, balance the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, release oxygen, sequester C02, mitigate erosion and flooding, create and renew a life giving soil, provide decomposition, the nitrogen cycle, the hydrological system; the purification of the air and water, pollination, 75% of all new medicines, 99% of all pest control and the regulation and checking of viruses and bacteria in the food chain with man that cause global pandemics, some of which have the capacity to wipe out the majority of the human populations. Frogs are listed as one of the species that regulate the populations of human disease pathogens, and frogs are falling extinct all over the world!!

Man must realize he only exists because of the natural wild, surface of the Earth, ecosystems and not because of hot, hot cities or heat islands, housing tracts, European lawns, office complexes, apartments, parking lots, shopping malls, hotels, resorts and supermarkets, and his growing populations are consuming, bulldozing, chain sawing, polluting, in-toxicating, concreting, bricking, road building and plowing, entombing and burying the Earth's life giving and sustaining systems, functions and cycles because of the more and more hordes of planet killing humans.

From the other book that also kicked off the environmental movement:

"In Wildness is the salvation of the EArth and the preservation of all life... but seldom perceived by man."

Zero Population Now.

Your examples have nothing to do with population. People will produce as much food as needed to sustain their population, plus extra for trade. When a disaster strikes, people are mobile and crops are not. Therefore, there will always be more human survivors than there is "surviving" cropland. Having a smaller population would not change this. If Russia had only 200 million people when the wildfires hit, then they would have grown only half as much wheat and soy. There would not have been enough demand to grow the same amount of food as they grew at a population of 400 million, nor enough labor to farm that much. The situation would have played out exactly the same, regardless of population.

It is true that non-producing nations suffer when a producing nation experiences disaster and hordes their "excess crop," which normally goes to market. This is a classic example of a distribution problem. Too much population is congregated in a non-producing area, which is unsustainable. The answer is not to reduce total population (which would just reduce demand for excess crop in the first place, as well as the necessary labor); the answer is for populations to be more evenly distributed among resources, instead of concentrated into non-producing areas. It has always been a distribution problem, not a population problem.

We got plenty of bullets in our possession more then them.

Definitely got a legacy going on there. You are correct, shut it down before you pass that to the next and the next and so on.

However, you can still enjoy the silly antics of a child just by hanging out with friends that have kids. They bring them over, you get to play, satiate your kid fix, then everyone goes home. Think of it as puppies. Everybody loves puppies..... until they grow.