Population frozen

Let’s suppose that some mad genius – or even a covert government op of some kind – decided that the world was too overpopulated, or feared that current birth trends would see their nation overflow with people or be overwhelmed by immigrants from somewhere that had too many people. That person/team uses a biological weapon, akin to the one from ‘Drakon’, to cut down the birth-rate. No matter what happens, 98% of women in the world can only have two pregnancies. After that, they’re sterile.

What might happen then?

Chris

This could actually lead to the interesting situation of the rich having larger families (on average) than the poor. Poor people couldn't pay for surrogate mothers, especially when the supply (these women would be giving up 50% of their chance to have children, or 100% if its the second one) is so low. Having more than 2 children would be a sign of affluence (or genetic luck). Multiple births pre pregnancy would be a very momentous occasion.

Of course, this assumes that scientists don't figure out a way to duplicate whatever protects the 2% that aren't sterilized.

less fear of teenage pregnacy for sure.

There would be massive population collapse in the underdeveloped nations as often babies would die before reaching pubaty. That was my main thought.

Further, abortion could not be permitted as the girl would have used up one of her chances. I suspect that it would be banned as soon as the govts realsed what had happened and the kids adoupted.

Chris

One bizarre solution to this problem is Gender Control--a form of selective birth control that makes woman more likely to conceive a girl than a boy (perhaps diaphragms that block Y chromosone sperm but admit X chromosone sperm). If the population gets gender shifted enough 2 pregancies will become a sufficient replacement rate.

If this approach is implemented look for polygamy to become legal and encouraged.

Wouldn't this also advance medical research into some of the causes of premature death such as cancer, aids and birth defects as children are seen as more precious. Also wouldn't fatty foods, alcohol, cigarettes be banned entirely??

trendel13 said:

Wouldn't this also advance medical research into some of the causes of premature death such as cancer, aids and birth defects as children are seen as more precious. Also wouldn't fatty foods, alcohol, cigarettes be banned entirely??

Click to expand...

Why? Most people could pump out 2 kids before they die of cancer. I don't see fatty foods getting banned, definately not alcohol (too ingrained in our societies, plus, its been helping guys get laid for millenia), though I could see cigarettes getting banned.

Also, we'd definately see an increase in sexual activity of women who've already given birth twice.

Hmmmm....

Well those all reduce your age and if you have a declining population you would need to get more use out of people while they are here. So you would want them to live longer lives maybe push the age expetcey into the 90s and by curing cancer and decreasing infant mortality rates the countries may do this.

trendel13 said:

Well those all reduce your age and if you have a declining population you would need to get more use out of people while they are here. So you would want them to live longer lives maybe push the age expetcey into the 90s and by curing cancer and decreasing infant mortality rates the countries may do this.

Click to expand...

Population wouldn't be declining, just increasing at an incredibly slow rate.

In the less developed world we would see a dramatic population crash, as these nations have so many children to guarantee some hope of security for the parents in old age. If the parents thought 2-3 kids meant 2-3 adult children to care for them, that would be sufficient. I'm afraid to even BEGIN to imagine how the Islamic world handles this.

The European Union is doomed, as any hope of prosperity is dependent on a certain ratio of retired to those entering the workplace. Now the ratio can't be maintained barring a gigantic expansion in non-European immigration.

Did I say Muslims? Perhaps I meant ALL religious nutjobs globally that like to be fruitful and multiply.

Israel is probably very happy about this, and any group having difficulty with a neighbor or internal faction enjoying a higher birthrate.

In the US, the white majority is not only locked in but will actually rise in the near future as a percentage of the population, unless the US ups immigration dramatically which it might well do.

In those parts of the world where population growth is inherently stable we can assume a slower decline in population, assuming places like Italy and Scandinavia can RAISE their birthrate to the full amount still possible.

2 kids is NOT replacement level since some will not live to grow up, or will not marry, or will not have luck with having kids of their own. No adoptions in THIS world! I believe the number needed is 2.3 children per family.

Hmm, it does get interesting. Can any Catholic marriage where the woman had two abortions be automatically annuled on the grounds of the woman being sterile?

Is there some high-tech way of getting around this? There was, in theory, in DRAKON.

Intresting thought, What would women's rights in less developed nations look like? would they go even lower especially after a woman has already had her two kids?

trendel13 said:

Intresting thought, What would women's rights in less developed nations look like? would they go even lower especially after a woman has already had her two kids?

Click to expand...

The idea of women having careers (and not children) would take a blow, as they would be seen as holding out on society.

We might be able to reach replacement levels, when you think about it. First of all, couples aren't limited to 2 children, just 2 pregnancies. Second, 2 out of every 100 women can have more than 2 pregnancies. Expect these women to be forced to do so in the more autocratic regions. They'd probably opt to do so in the more democratic countries, as there would probably be some reward for doing so (low taxes, profits from serving as surrogate mothers, etc.). Anyway, its possible that the average, at least in the more developed countries, will reach 2.3 children per couple, or better.

The third world will take a massive population hit, as we've mentioned. This'll probably be better for them, in the long run. It sounds harsh, but its probably true. All those small wars would eventually burn themselves out, as the populations decrease and it becomes harder and harder to field any form of army.

As for Europe, I think it really won't have that much of an effect, since the average for most of the countries is less than 2 children anyway.

Is this TL a trick question?

What is Italy's 2003 fertility rate

1.26

What is Japan's 2003 fertility rate?

1.38

So it can be argued this virus would be scarely noticed in these countries

.http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/30.html

So would the less developed nations stablize further because of abundance of food a better oppurtunity for education or would the labor intensive farming systems suffer and cause massive starvation and force the countries backward in terms of development?

trendel13 said:

So would the less developed nations stablize further because of abundance of food a better oppurtunity for education or would the labor intensive farming systems suffer and cause massive starvation and force the countries backward in terms of development?

Click to expand...

Depends on how much aid the ROTW is willing to provide. Besides, almost every farming advance of the (pre-industrial) argicultural revolution can be implemented in the undeveloped countries of the world, without much help.

In the countries that have lower than 2 children per couple averages, you might see an increase as people start to procreate more, after they've taken for granted that they could have more kids. Of course, this increase wouldn't be much, as they have that limit now.

The more I think about it, the more interesting this world would be...

Try more disastrous. What will happen in less developed nations when the number of pregnancies is restricted to two per woman yet the infant mortality rate will take years to adapt to this? More to the point, we've just caused a massive population collapse in Africa, the Arab League, and much of Latin America. Hope they don't respond badly to it.

China, in contrast, is very happy. No more government programs for birth control!

Grimm Reaper said:

Try more disastrous. What will happen in less developed nations when the number of pregnancies is restricted to two per woman yet the infant mortality rate will take years to adapt to this? More to the point, we've just caused a massive population collapse in Africa, the Arab League, and much of Latin America. Hope they don't respond badly to it.

China, in contrast, is very happy. No more government programs for birth control!

Click to expand...

Obviously the population will crash. However, when you consider the level of development and the regimes in power in those countries, its not too hard to make the argument that they're overpopulated. So, in the long run, they'll be better off, as their population will be incapable of expanding beyond their capacity to provide for such population.

Africa and Asia would be doubly hosed... in addition to the sudden halt of population growth, they have the looming AIDS crisis on the way....

I like the thought of polygamy.
Which countries would it help?
And which ones would just not adopt it?
Would it be cut right down the middle to which countries have had it in the past or still have it? Or would the nations in the west consider this a threat and legalize it.
I'm thinking this could maybe push India over the top into a great power status thier population would maybe continue to grow during the intial crash.
But as mentioned before the infant mortiality rates and other medical practices would have to be reasearched more heavily.
Also a thought on public transportation in urban areas.
Since automobile accidents kill many people would thier be a push to use buses more to perserve population due to premature deaths?

After the first great pandemic that severely decimates the world population some one would reverse engineer a means for more than two pregnancies.

HOWEVER,

I don't think I saw any indication that there would be any limits on multiple births - only the limit of two pregnancies. In that case there would be an increase in the use of fertility drugs and the increase in twin, triplet, quadruplet, etc. etc. pregnancies. A woman would probably go into one pregnancy with as many as 10-12 embryos and by selection may only allow 3-4 come to complete gestation. Can anybody say eugenics? Thats what we will see the rise of, since everybody would want to give their child the best possible odds of surviving through infancy.

Its also possible that certain women, those from families with a history of multiple births, would be raised (bred?) to produce large litters.