Russian population

Why is there such a decline in pop in Russia ? any steps taken by the govt ( other than immigration) to help that ? is it working ?

nastle77 wrote:Why is there such a decline in pop in Russia ? any steps taken by the govt ( other than immigration) to help that ? is it working ?

1. Because of homosex.

2. Annexation of heavily populated areas like the Krim / Outlawing homosex.

3. Obviously:

"As of 2014, Russian TFR of 1.750 children per woman[7] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe. In 2013, Russia experienced the first natural population growth since 1990 at 22,700 people. Taking into account immigration, the population grew by 294,500 people.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

sorry, couldn't resist some pre-emptive trolling

Fred333 wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Why is there such a decline in pop in Russia ? any steps taken by the govt ( other than immigration) to help that ? is it working ?

1. Because of homosex.

2. Annexation of heavily populated areas like the Krim / Outlawing homosex.

3. Obviously:

"As of 2014, Russian TFR of 1.750 children per woman[7] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe. In 2013, Russia experienced the first natural population growth since 1990 at 22,700 people. Taking into account immigration, the population grew by 294,500 people.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

sorry, couldn't resist some pre-emptive trolling  

What about Russian diaspora in Europe and US ?
Russian people I see even in America have very few kids , why ?
I live in Chicago a lot of Russians here , great people lot of funs but very few kids

nastle77 wrote:

Fred333 wrote:

nastle77 wrote:Why is there such a decline in pop in Russia ? any steps taken by the govt ( other than immigration) to help that ? is it working ?

1. Because of homosex.

2. Annexation of heavily populated areas like the Krim / Outlawing homosex.

3. Obviously:

"As of 2014, Russian TFR of 1.750 children per woman[7] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe. In 2013, Russia experienced the first natural population growth since 1990 at 22,700 people. Taking into account immigration, the population grew by 294,500 people.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

sorry, couldn't resist some pre-emptive trolling  

What about Russian diaspora in Europe and US ?
Russian people I see even in America have very few kids , why ?
I live in Chicago a lot of Russians here , great people lot of funs but very few kids

I was just joking in my previous post, probably the resident Russian member can explain this better. If I were to take an educated guess, bad economic prospects, joblessness, wodka overconsumption all play their parts. If you are not that rich to begin with and have little prospect for increasing your economic situation, then it is more likely that people decide not to have children (not being able to support them). Now that the economy has improved under Putin, there is a corresponding improvement in the demographic situation, not a coincidence IMHO.

Why do Europeans have so few kids?

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Rhetorical question, or?

Because we no longer need them to safeguard our income when we get old. The state takes care of that (although this is slowly changing now). Having children now is a choice for us, not a necessity. Coupled with secularization (no more divine imperatives to have many children). People rather have a small number of children they can guarantee a good upbringing (really the former situation on its head) and give loving attention to, than 10 critters who are expected to work on the land or in factories and supply income to their parents when the latter are too old to work.

Fred333 wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Rhetorical question, or?

Because we no longer need them to safeguard our income when we get old. The state takes care of that (although this is slowly changing now). Having children now is a choice for us, not a necessity. Coupled with secularization (no more divine imperatives to have many children). People rather have a small number of children they can guarantee a good upbringing (really the former situation on its head) and give loving attention to, than 10 critters who are expected to work on the land or in factories and supply income to their parents when the latter are too old to work.  

Nonsense, Kids do till this date assure the income and Pensions of the elder. Currently the conditions in germany are like that, by the year 2030 there will be around 30-40% of germans without high enough pensions to provide basics for daily life, they can't pay rent or food, meaning they have to work untill they are 70-72 to pay off all the extra money they need to assure their pensions are enough.

There are several reasons why europeans are killing themselfs. To assure a population does not decline they need to produce two kids which will replace their parents, the death rate and birth rate need to be identical to assure a constant in population. The fact that europeans tend to get less kids is mainly and for the biggest part economical. When 30-50 years ago one father could provide for a family of five we know need both parents to assure the same for a three headed family and we are speaking here about average not wealthy or better earning. This EU policies are destroying economies and the living standards for middle and lower class citizens. The middle class is shrinking while the less earning and working class is widening. The fact that the biggest corruption in germany does not come from cars industry but from the cheating of german pensioner funds is providing this trend to get less kids or even to marry. Other factors are the decadency of the west where through media youth is indoctrinated to believe that a single life is awesome and you do not need to get marry or have kids. This has a great effect on younger generations and even poor families in other countries get more kids because that is healthy for countries and does not show backwardeness but natural growth, while western coutnries are artificially destroyed. Germans do not reproduce even above 1.3 kids per year with 1.9 death toll, but this fact is strictly taboo and overshadowed by mass imigration mainly from turkey and other countries that keep the total population number constant, such a process is not healthy but shows serious and troublesome picture of societies that are artificially destroyed. Germany ranks by CIA factbook on place 219 on population growth and 31 rank on death rate. That is horrible and a tendency for self-extinction due low birth rates.

That wouldn't be such a big problem if the death rate would go down and birth rate would go up and immigration of non assimilating countries would shrink or to be stopped, but the tendency is the exact opposite, while russia it lowers its death rates and increases its population growth, so there is some future unlike at the current rate and state for germany.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Will this is what I get back from British people I speak to. (And other Westerners).

From the late 1980s, everyone was sold a vision of sexual equality, great wealth to be had if you work hard, and nothing if you don't.

By the mid 90s that "dream" had disappeared for many. And the well paying male industrial jobs of the past had disappeared too. Being a college grad had become the "losing ticket" for many. Esp compared to those who had gone for traditional trades instead.

You see grads of 25, 35 yrs or so and they are in shit jobs - way less than their less educated parents. Naturally the males feel uncomfortable about this. And even the females are career obsessed compared to their mothers. They keep putting off settling down and having kids. Some are now noticing they are simply too late to have kids. (Toxins and pollutants are also having a huge effect on fertility AND the number of heterosexuals in society!). The newest attack on them is immigrant labour, leaving them on lower wages or even unemployed. You could also argue that the "me me" culture and geographic mobility has ended communities which tended to "pair up" unattached singles in the past.

Compare all that to Asian/African immigrants who arent bothered that they live in poverty, because they never knew any different.

I'd say that fear over pensions (ie no money in old age) has caused young people to concentrate on career not kids, to safeguard the future financially.

Firebird wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Will this is what I get back from British people I speak to. (And other Westerners).

From the late 1980s, everyone was sold a vision of sexual equality, great wealth to be had if you work hard, and nothing if you don't.

By the mid 90s that "dream" had disappeared for many. And the well paying male industrial jobs of the past had disappeared too. Being a college grad had become the "losing ticket" for many. Esp compared to those who had gone for traditional trades instead.

You see grads of 25, 35 yrs or so and they are in shit jobs - way less than their less educated parents. Naturally the males feel uncomfortable about this. And even the females are career obsessed compared to their mothers. They keep putting off settling down and having kids. Some are now noticing they are simply too late to have kids. (Toxins and pollutants are also having a huge effect on fertility AND the number of heterosexuals in society!). The newest attack on them is immigrant labour, leaving them on lower wages or even unemployed. You could also argue that the "me me" culture and geographic mobility has ended communities which tended to "pair up" unattached singles in the past.

Compare all that to Asian/African immigrants who arent bothered that they live in poverty, because they never knew any different.

I'd say that fear over pensions (ie no money in old age) has caused young people to concentrate on career not kids, to safeguard the future financially.

Not a surprise that you end up with such low fertility rates in much of the West when the political elite in these counties is so hell-bent towards bringing up a new generation of egoistical hedonists indoctrinated with neo-liberalism, homosexual and feminist propaganda.

I mean why have kids, if life is good, and they'll only slow down your career opportunities?
Besides families and marriage are a form of patriarchial oppression, right?

In Russia the political elite has focussed on the exact opposite; promoting traditional family and conservative values, discouraging the promotion of homosexuality, supporting religious leaders, etc.. Then all the measures for supporting young families and so on.

Well the result is now that Russia and the West, in the space of about 10 years - have switched places.
Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.
I don't know what Europe's answer to this whole problem is. America of course has and always had its own answer to this - immigration. Given that it's a country founded on immigration, the continuation of this process and the promotion of anti-family, neo-liberal values poses no threat to it. Can't say the same about Europe though; but then the US hardly gave a damn about how pressuring the EU to cut-off economic links with Russia would affect EU economies; so why should it have given any more a damn about how pressuring Europe to adopt its value-system would affect European demographics and long-term stability?

Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

I don't think that Russia has the highest fertility rate in Europe. France and several others have higher. Maybe Russia has the highest fertility rate in eastern Europe?

Project Canada wrote:Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

This:

Project Canada wrote:Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

There isn't nearly the gulf between Muslim and non-Muslim fertility rates in Russia (a tenth or fifth of a point) that you see between Muslims and non-Muslims in Western Europe (several whole points).

The second thing is that most of the rise in fertility rates in Russia over the last 10 years has been due to birth increases in ethnic Russian provinces, not so much the Muslim republics.

Project Canada wrote:Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

There isn't nearly the gulf between Muslim and non-Muslim fertility rates in Russia (a tenth or fifth of a point) that you see between Muslims and non-Muslims in Western Europe (several whole points).

The decond thing is that most of the rise in fertility rates in Russia over the last 10 years has been due to birth increases in ethnic Russian provinces, not so much the Muslim republics.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Consider the population density in most European nations, Germany for example [almost 700 people per square mile].

It is basically criminal for Western leaders to allow massive immigration into Western nations that are already so crowded, with depressed economies, large numbers of native citizens unemployed, that native citizens are so distressed they are not even having their own kids.

flamming_python wrote:

Project Canada wrote:Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

There isn't nearly the gulf between Muslim and non-Muslim fertility rates in Russia (a tenth or fifth of a point) that you see between Muslims and non-Muslims in Western Europe (several whole points).

The decond thing is that most of the rise in fertility rates in Russia over the last 10 years has been due to birth increases in ethnic Russian provinces, not so much the Muslim republics.

Russia is a country with a potentially great future, primarily because it has a very low population density and lots of reasonably decent land available for future settlement. Population density has a direct relationship to quality of life and standard of living.

Consider how people are living in Bangladesh vs how they are living in Uruguay or Canada. When you have 12,000 people per square mile vs 10 people per square mile, life is going to be fairly miserable, being crammed in like sardines.


In the near future the sparsely populated nations of the world, such as Argentina, Uruguay, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc, will very likely see calls and demands from the poorly managed overpopulated nations such as Bangladesh, China, India, etc, to open their borders and take tens of millions of their surplus citizens in as immigrants.


Russia fought hard and sacrificed much for what it has today, the vast wilderness of fresh land in the Russian interior should be for the future generations of Russia, not for mass immigrant colonies from other nations.

Besides, if Russia allowed itself to serve as a "relief valve" for the dumping of surplus population from a place such as Bangladesh, it would create a vicious cycle where within 10-20 years the population of Bangladesh would again be bursting and would be looking to send more immigrants.

In the long-term the only way to address population problems is a dual approach of promoting increased infrastructure and prosperity in third world nations along with substantially reduced family size, while substantially curtailing immigration to preserve vacant land for future generations of the nation.

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

Dude have you even seen Russia on the map?

With some creativity you could dump entire population of the planet in there pretty comfortably...

Perhaps, but what would the quality of life be if they suddenly went from 21 people per square mile [present ratio] to 1200 people per square mile [hypothetical ratio with the entire world of 7.5 billion living there]?

BTRfan wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Consider the population density in most European nations, Germany for example [almost 700 people per square mile].

It is basically criminal for Western leaders to allow massive immigration into Western nations that are already so crowded, with depressed economies, large numbers of native citizens unemployed, that native citizens are so distressed they are not even having their own kids.

Crowded? Not at all.

Depressed economies? Partly because the population growth is so small or non-existent.

Large numbers of native citizens unemployed? Depends on the country. It is not an issue in Germany (unemployment rate is below 7%).

One of the reasons why modern Germany is so important is that the government allowed many millions to settle in West Germany in the last 70 years.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

BTRfan wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Consider the population density in most European nations, Germany for example [almost 700 people per square mile].

It is basically criminal for Western leaders to allow massive immigration into Western nations that are already so crowded, with depressed economies, large numbers of native citizens unemployed, that native citizens are so distressed they are not even having their own kids.

Crowded? Not at all.

Depressed economies? Partly because the population growth is so small or non-existent.

Large numbers of native citizens unemployed? Depends on the country. It is not an issue in Germany (unemployment rate is below 7%).

One of the reasons why modern Germany is so important is that the government allowed many millions to settle in West Germany in the last 70 years.

The idea that you need continual population growth for economic growth is based on flawed 1700s-1800s thinking when work was labor intensive. Now work is capital intensive. Only in third world nations is work still labor intensive.

Furthermore, many European nations have record unemployment and youth unemployment, especially Spain and Italy, how would immigration alleviate these problems? By adding millions of new job seekers????

Seven percent, or even six percent, unemployment is still significant.

BTRfan wrote:

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:Why do Europeans have so few kids?

Consider the population density in most European nations, Germany for example [almost 700 people per square mile].

It is basically criminal for Western leaders to allow massive immigration into Western nations that are already so crowded, with depressed economies, large numbers of native citizens unemployed, that native citizens are so distressed they are not even having their own kids.

Yes, bad for Europe. Not so bad for the rest of the world.

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

Dude have you even seen Russia on the map?

With some creativity you could dump entire population of the planet in there pretty comfortably...

No. Most of Russian landmass is useless for humans to live.

BTRfan wrote:The idea that you need continual population growth for economic growth is based on flawed 1700s-1800s thinking when work was labor intensive. Now work is capital intensive. Only in third world nations is work still labor intensive.

Furthermore, many European nations have record unemployment and youth unemployment, especially Spain and Italy, how would immigration alleviate these problems? By adding millions of new job seekers????

You still need new workers and consumers for a economic growth that is higher than the productivity growth.

BTRfan wrote:Seven percent, or even six percent, unemployment is still significant.

Considering that an unemployment rate below five percent is regarded as full employment, it is not.

Karl Haushofer wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:Question, how big of a population can Russia with its current size (without former soviet states) be able to support? can Russia still have a population of around 300 mil?

Russia now has AFAIK the highest fertility rate in all of Europe.

Westerners downplay this by saying that only people of "Muslim" origin/affiliations are having more births in Russia, and not really ethnic Russians. what is your take on this?

Dude have you even seen Russia on the map?

With some creativity you could dump entire population of the planet in there pretty comfortably...

No. Most of Russian landmass is useless for humans to live.

Yes, because the russian bears will eat all humans, drink vodka and play balalaika on the their bones...

Russia is the most fertile land to use for humans, some places are harsher but still people life their for very long time in relative simple houses and under very simple circumstances while bringing money and technology to those places would make them a very good place to live with alot of resources.

There are various towns/villages that are along the permafrost lines in Russia, whom still manage to grow veggies (well, potatoes really). Various edible berries full of nutrition grow on permafrost - particularly a moss that grows on permafrost. We have them in northern Canada. Close to the arctic or in the arctic. They grow for only 2 months of the year, but very good.

As well, greenhouses are a major thing now. Only issue is that making a greenhouse in northern territories will take some considerable work in making sure the ground is solid (dig, replace dirt, sand, gravel, cement, etc) or it would sink. But once completed, and with decent energy source (there are newer solar panels and wind turbines that can work in far north climates) and you can have all year round food development. For meat eaters, ranching is another concept too. Ranching Yaks is apparently a thing in north Siberia and far east amongst certain tribals.