Posted on 03/03/2003 12:39:50 AM PST by nickcarraway
By 2050 75% of even developing countries will be under 2.1 birth rate
NEW YORK, February 27, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Yesterday, the United Nations released the 2002 Revision of the official United Nations population estimates and projections. For the first time, the United Nations Population Division projects that future fertility levels in most developing countries will likely fall below 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to ensure the long-term replacement of the population, at some point in the twenty-first century. By 2050, the medium variant of the 2002 Revision projects that three out of every four countries in the less developed regions will be experiencing below-replacement fertility, with all developed countries far below replacement level as well.
As a consequence of these changes, the 2002 Revision projects a lower population in 2050 than the 2000 Revision did: 8.9 billion instead of 9.3 billion according to the medium variant. About half of the 0.4 billion difference in the projected populations results from a reduction in the projected number of births, primarily as a result of lower expected future fertility levels. The other half of the difference reflects an increase in the number of projected deaths, the majority stemming from higher projected levels of HIV prevalence.
Populations will decline in 33 countries by 2050 according to the report, with countries such as Italy projected to be 22 per cent smaller and the Russian Federation nearly 50 per cent smaller.
The deeper reductions of fertility projected in the 2002 Revision result in a faster ageing of the population of developing countries than in previous revisions, which will stress social security systems. Globally, the number of older persons (60 years or over) will nearly triple, increasing from 606 million in 2000 to nearly 1.9 billion by 2050. In more developed regions, the population aged 60 or over currently constitutes 19 per cent of the population; by 2050 it will account for 32 per cent of the population.
Increases in the median age, the age at which 50 per cent of the population is older and 50 per cent is younger than that age, reflect the ageing of the population. Among developed countries, 17 are expected to have a median age of 50 years or more, with Japan, Latvia and Slovenia (each with a median age of about 53 years), and the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Singapore and Spain (each with a median age of about 52 years) leading the list.
Technology and incresed literacy help us expand ; but the question now is where do we expand too?
The great conquering of the western hemisphere is over.....hell we have illegals everywhere and no way to control them.
We need a new "great american west".......we need to get off this world and colonise.
I morn the loss of Columbia but I also know its time we move to knew worlds or we risk the fate of stagnation.........and death.
This country was never better than when it had the challenge of settling this continent. I think its time we found a world to settle just as we settled this continent.
For one thing, Social Security taxes on young people will have to go up to 100% to support the greedy geezers in the manner in which they consider themselves to be entitled.
Close to what I tell my kids...the money is just going to Mom n Dad..look at it that way....
Oh yes, BTW, the kids were given a pretty good 'head start'in life by Mom n Dad.
But it's not. FICA is rolled into general revenue and spent, thanks to Lyndon Baines Johnson.
There is no Social Security trust fund. It is a lie.
Shame on you for telling your children a lie.
What a sick, sad, pathetic joke.
I'm not exactly elated, but this news of a long-term population drop is good news.
Twenty-four years ago, it was highly politically incorrect to suggest any such thing. Certainly no UN bureaucrat would have been caught dead suggesting that the population might shrink - think of all that financial aid they would no longer be able to loot!
To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good [17], it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom [18]; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disordered, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed [19].
16. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier [20].
The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it i during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.
17. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion.
Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be more efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.
Humanae Vitae
Pope Paul VI (1968)
How does Gaia influence women to have fewer children?
The point is, when women throughout the world are not *forced* to have a lot of children, most of them don't.
That part of the plan seems to be working:
The following (A Plan for Peace, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood) was published in A Plan for Peace*
|
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.