Posted on 07/20/2005 1:45:00 PM PDT by briant
Dans les prochaines décennies, ce n'est pas la surpopulation mais la dépopulation qui menacera la planète, y compris l'Asie. Réunis à Tours, les démographes craignent de graves conséquences sociales et économiques.
(I translated a bit) In the commming decades, it's not overpopulation, but underpopulation which will threaten the planet, including Asia. Meeting in Tours, demographers fear grave social and econimic consequences.
Steyn has been saying this about Europe. I hope it's a temporary problem and that in less static places of the world, new means will be found to deal with depopulation--i.e., different social programs and methods of production.
Rough but workable translation from Babelfish:
Nothing occurs as envisaged. Whereas one believed the world threatened of overpopulation, the demographers hold up a new risk today: depopulation. Far from continuing to multiply as it has done in a spectacular way for two centuries, humanity would prepare quite to the contrary, from here to around fifty of years, to decrease in a number. The report, drawn up lately by various researchers, was confirmed Monday by the president of the international Union for the scientific study of population (IUSSP), the French demographer Jacques Vallin, in opening of XXVe Congrès international of the population, a major demonstration which takes place every four years and brings together this week with Tours some 2000 participants. Our vision of the future of humanity is some upset. The community of the demographers had mainly adopted since around fifty of years a theory known as of the "demographic transition". According to the latter, the population of the sphere was supposed to pass from a point of balance to another. If it had started to increase in a spectacular way starting from the middle of the XVIIIe century because of a radical reduction of the death rate, it was going to be stabilized in the long term thanks to an also important reduction in the birth rate. And all would return in the order. However, the "demographic transition" is completed, one notes it today, in a chaotic way. At the two ends of the existence, the evolution of the population continues well beyond what was envisaged. The life expectancy took the elevator. "In the Eighties, one affirmed that it would never exceed 75 years, explains Jacques Vallin. Then, one spoke about a maximum of 85. And today, one is to 100." It acts there, of course, of an excellent news, more especially as the old people profit more and more a long time from a good health. But this progress has as a corollary a radical ageing of the population and will thus have a cost for the company: it will at the very least require a serious handing-over in question of our way of life. The end of the "demographic transition" does not appear also dramatic however if another phenomenon did not occur with the other end of the existence. The rise in the life expectancy is coupled with a very strong fall of the index of fruitfulness. It was considered a long time that this last figure would decrease gradually in the companies developed to stabilize itself around 2,1 children per woman, that is to say the level necessary to the reproduction of a population. However, this limit was inserted. In Europe, the index fell to 1,4, with points with 1,2 in various countries of the east and the south of the continent. In Eastern Asia, it is gone down to 1,6, with a world record of 0,8 in Hongkong. Figures spectacularly low. Figures considered a long time, also, like exceptional. Many demographers expected that they go up after a few years or, less, that they are compensated by the birthrate of other areas of the world. However, there still, reality proves surprising. Not only the rate of fruitfulness of the developed countries remains very low, but that of many countries in the process of development dégringole in its turn. The risk of nonrenewal of the populations which one thought exceptional reveals general. And, in this respect, a course comes to be crossed: since 2003, more half of humanity lives in a country or an area of the world (China and India were cut out in areas) where fruitfulness is below the fateful bar of the 2,1 children per woman. Result: whereas the demographers announced that the Earth would have 15 billion inhabitants in 2050, they envisage nothing any more but 9 billion them. More significant still of a change of prospect: much of them announces for the continuation a clear reduction of the world population. Depopulation, if it is confirmed, will not fail to have economic effects. It will pose a problem of distribution of the richnesses, since less and less workers the load more and more people will have to assume. In a more general way, it will be difficult to ensure a sustained high growth with a declining number of producers and consumers. To ensure the survival of the system, the companies will have to re-examine their in-depth organization. Today, the developed countries have at their disposal the resources offered by the immigration, from which they profit already largely to preserve their population. But it is only one short-term solution there since the tanks of migrants are condemned to dry itself up in their turn in a few decades. It will more deeply be a question of changing our report/ratio with work. The measure to be taken most obvious would be to raise the retirement age appreciably. But it will however be necessary to re-examine entirely the life division meanwhile of formation, work and rest. The economic and social changes are most obvious. But there will be others of them. In the political field for example, since an old and less and less many population will have a way different from ours to consider the life. Lastly, the geography even will be upset since whole areas will turn over to the wildlife after millenia of human conquests.
Get married, have babies - and drive liberals crazy...
Here's a translation.:)
http://sites.gizoogle.com/showpage.php?url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447054/posts
Have Blonde Blue-Eyed Babies and REALLY drive the Libs crazy!
LOL!!
Are you sure those aren't Floridians?
"Steyn has been say'n this `bout Europe. I hope it's a temporary problem n thiznat in less static places of tha world, new means wizzay be found ta deal wit depopulation--izzles different social programs n methods of production fo shizzle."
LOL. Boo-yah.
The problem is social insurance ponzi schemes in most developed countries.
That would not drive liberals crazy. You really need to see the classifieds of the high end New York magazines requesting donor eggs/sperm of blond,blue eyed college coeds and guys.
Link to "Democrizzle Underground" fo shizzle:
http://sites.gizoogle.com/showpage.php?url=http://www.democraticunderground.com
Darn....
If I was younger and had more eggs to sell... I could be RICH!!!
/sarc
/barf
That's their problem. A lot of these places experiencing 'underpopulation' are into abortions,immorality,socialism,etc. What do you expect when you have no reverence for life?
LOL yeah it's just hysterical. If that's what someone wants in a child well fine BUT going in the parks in Manhattan and you see lesbian couples with a tow headed child, you go HMMMMMMMM.
Around here it's the two gay guys with the mexican babies.
Hmmmmmmm......
Products of illegal entry?
last paragraph blunder: "...societies will have to review their organization in depth."
oops... societies should be businesses or companies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.