Posted on 07/27/2007 10:29:58 PM PDT by minn7rules
Demographers have long acknowledged that the Malthusian population explosion is a myth. The threat of a skyrocketing population eventually sucking up all Earth's resources, leading to rampant starvation and disease is simply junk science. With the modernization of the global economy, worldwide fertility rates have been falling for decades. A more realistic concern is actually the extent to which birth rates have fallen, and may continue to fall. Today in most European and many East Asian countries fertility has sunken perilously low. Economies are bogged down as more retirees depend on fewer workers, as the article acknowledges. At least as importantly, however, entire cultures and societies teeter on the edge as they struggle to cope with this trend.
An editorial from The Economist tackles this issue from a purely, well, economic standpoint. The first part of the article does a good job of giving a background and some interesting statistics. It states, "Four out of nine people already live in countries in which the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement rate. Last year the United Nations said it thought the world's average fertility would fall below replacement by 2025. Demographers expect the global population to peak at around 10 billion (it is now 6.5 billion) by mid-century." Seemingly, this is a positive trend. A smooth transition from the rapid population growth of industrialization to a manageable rate seems ideal. This would be the case if fertility was relatively equally balanced around the globe. However, birth rates are highest in exactly the regions that can least support such population growth. Africa especially will need to confront the problems of a burgeoning population. The developed world, meanwhile, will face exactly the opposite problem.
In the second half of its editorial, The Economist goes on to discuss possible solutions to falling populations. These solutions stem from the assumption that what we are dealing with is essentially a problem of economics. As such, the editorial misses the mark by claiming, "States should not be in the business of pushing people to have babies. If women decide to spend their 20s clubbing rather than child-rearing, and their cash on handbags rather than nappies, that's up to them." First, it's quite obvious that governments should not push women to procreate. No one has suggested an approach like the Romanian dictatorship that forced women to undergo inspections to see that they had not used contraception or had abortions. Attacking this straw man gets us nowhere in understanding the situation at hand. Governments in nations of diminishing populations should undoubtedly, however, be in the business of encouraging couples to have enough children to support them in their retirement years. Such an approach has seen unparalleled success in France, where generous government benefits for mothers make it possible for women to live a successful life both in and out of the workplace. Because of these efforts, France does not face this problem to the extent of many other European nations. Encouraging citizens to maintain a healthy population - to advance the economy in the short term, and to ensure the continuation of the country in the long-term - should be at the top of the list of priorities.
The Economist, while offering a good analysis of the problem, misses the solution completely. It's cure-all: raising the retirement age, abolishing seniority-based salary structures, and increasing immigration numbers. These efforts merely sugar-coat the issue by attempting to treat the symptoms, rather than fixing the real problem. For The Economist, the problem is that economic growth and entitlement programs will suffer. In reality, the problem is low fertility itself. Slower economic advancement is but one of its troubling effects. Another equally problematic area is cultural: if societies fail to perpetuate themselves, they will cease to exist as we know them. And there is no lack of those who are willing to take their place. This is where some analysts' ignorance of the situation shines through most clearly. They propose greater immigration as a fix to falling birthrates. If Germans and Italians aren't having enough children to ensure their nations' survival, the reasoning goes, they should simply import enough Turkish and Moroccan immigrants to make up the difference. This naivety is stunning. It is as if these analysts had been living under a rock as unassimilated immigrants rioted in suburban France, burning thousand of autos and creating a national emergency. The answer is not increased immigration of millions of people from fundamentalist Islamic countries who do not share Western values of democracy, the rule of law, and freedom of speech. As a civilization we should have higher priorities than, as The Economist suggests, ensuring that European women can buy their Louis Vitton bags.
The answer does not involve replacing developed societies with new ones so that one more generation of graying seniors are assured a pleasant twilight. Governments should emulate, France's approach (yes, that's right) to supporting working mothers in childbearing. States should give generous subsidies to those families who are willing to sacrifice to have 2, 3, or more children. And while immigration has of course benefited developed nations in many ways, it is assuredly not the answer for a problem so fundamental as this. It is not an insurmountable problem, but it is one that must be confronted head-on. Indeed, presumably all nations will one day arrive at the same point. Europe and East Asia simply have the undistinguished honor of facing it first. Hopefully, they will have the foresight to treat the underlying issue itself, as opposed to short-term solutions to alleviate its symptoms.
Soylent Green was a myth ?
Those demographers don't live in California.
Yeah, that why our news broadcasts are full of the mass die offs from famine going on in CA right?
Unfortunately not.
Demographers are predicting California’s population will jump from its present 30-35 million to 60 million in 2050.
Mostly due to hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across the border, especially pregnant females looking for 'free' medical care.
L
How about you actually try looking up Thomas Malthus and his theories so you know what you are talking about before responding again?
Ah, stop right there, LOL.
The demographers cited in the article claimed that the long-anticipated population crisis wasn't occuring, that a natural regulatory mechanism was working to suppress fertility, that world population would top out at 10 billion or so.
I used a short-hand example to say that I didn't believe them and that 10 billion would probably be beyond the capacity of the earth to support.
I think everyone but self-righteous, small-minded, mean-spirited, pompous jackasses like you got it without further explanation.
The areas of the world with high birth rates are those least able to support larger numbers of people. Therefore, those areas with less than replacement birthrates - the first world - are faced with innundation by immigrants and destruction of their cultures.
What is the recommended solution? Increased birth rates in the first world. What does stability in the first world plus increases in population in the second world imply? Growing world populations, not stability. What are the chances of bringing down the fertility rates in the third world to replacement levels? Not good, especially since Muslims regard high birth rates as their principal weapon in the war with the West.
And what about your blind trust in "demographers"? Which demographers? How much dispute is there among them? The author has nothing to say about this, no citations, nothing. Yet you believe him because he supports your bias. Contrast this with the way you treat climate experts.
You know that lump on top of your shoulders? I'd have it amputed since it's clearly good for nothing.
Look carefully at the projection (get help). In the next 40 years Middle-Eastern and African (and Latin American) populations will grow a great deal - resulting in huge migrations and political explosions. That means no stability...therefore all predictions are off, not reliable, kaput.
“What are the chances of bringing down the fertility rates in the third world to replacement levels? Not good, especially since Muslims regard high birth rates as their principal weapon in the war with the West.”
Did you actually read the article? Four out of 9 people live in countries that have birthrates below replacement level...fertility is plummeting all over the world because of a little thing called BIRTH CONTROL.
Secondly, you acknowledge that Muslim radicals regard their higher reproduction as one of their main weapons. So then why would we want them coming to the West? You say the article doesn’t quote demographers: “Which demographers?” What?! It is plain scientific fact that fertility is falling worldwide, it is NOT some alternative junk-science like Malthuse
4 out of 9 live in countries that have birthrates below replacement levels. Gee, that means 5 out of 9 live where? Fertility is declining (plummeting?) but that doesn't mean population is declining, or even that population growth is declining. It's a lot more subtle than that. You have to look at how many children reach the reproductive age, and many other factors. Further, stating what population will be 50 years on is more a guess than a prediction.
Why would we want Muslims coming to the West? Why would we want Mexicans coming to America? Try and stop them.
Malthus is junk science? You really don't know what you're talking about. Why do you think I linked that article? I tried to educate you...but apparantly you're so sure you're right that you see no need to question anything you believe.
Pathetic.
Liberal Larry, your link was to a WIKIPEDIA ENTRY!! Is that your unbiased, expert scientific source? Please...
Here’s some actual stats for you, if they will make a difference:
-A nation needs 2.1 births per woman in her lifetime to maintain a stable population.
-CHINA (the world’s largest nation in terms of population) is at about 1.75 birth per woman. In 1965 the birthrate was about 40 births per thousand. Now it’s at about 13.
-In Iran (America’s biggest threat, and a Muslim nation) the birthrate has fallen to below replacement - currently 1.71 births per woman.
-Among other non-Western, ‘3rd world’ nations there are many with birthrates below replacement. To name just a few Chile 1.97, Turkey 1.89, Thailand 1.64, Cuba 1.60, South Korea 1.28, Japan 1.23, Taiwan 1.12, Singapore 1.07, and with the lowest fertility in the world Hong Kong at 0.98 births per woman.
-In other nations across the globe fertility has fallen precipitously in the past few decades. Just to use your Mexican example, contrary to popular belief the typical Mexican family is not 10, 8, 5, or even 3, children. Currently the average Mexican woman has 2.39 children in her lifetime. Hardly an unmanageable population explosion...
-Global fertility is dropping like a rock, currently at 2.59 births per woman. Global population will continue to climb because of ‘demographic momentum’ which is a subject I won’t get into here because I don’t believe you’re capable of understanding.
Check out these stats at the CIA world factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
And what's your idea of an unbiased, expert scientific source? The CIA! Hahahahhahaha....
Forget it. Live in ignorance.
Just saw this.
Demographic momentum is just a fancy way of saying that it takes awhile for population figures to start showing the effect of a drop in fertility Actually it may show up in surprising ways.
Consider a hypothetical. An average woman in a population gives birth to 6 children but only 2 survive through full reproductive age. If the trend is consistant then her two children will each have 6 kids - 12 total - but only two will survive to reproduce - 4 total. Now suppose the fertility of an average woman drops to 4 but all survive through full reproductive age. Then a total of 16 will survive to reproduce...so even though fertility has dropped the population will increase explosively. Of course, this is only an exagerated hypothetical to illustrate a point. There's more. How one defines the terms and does the counting can strongly influence the result...so one has to look very, very carefully at the methodology.
Now I don't mind if a more knowledgeable person talks down to me. I learn something. But you're not that person.
Liberal Larry...what can I say
Your claim that Wikipedia is a more reliable source than the US Central Intelligence Agency is just laughable. The CIA have no motivation to fudge birthrate statistics around the world.
Next, if you are seriously interested in educating yourself, how about you read this CBS News story:
“UN: World Fertility Drops”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/27/health/main669744.shtml
-”Following a trend among rich nations, the fertility rate in developing countries has dropped below three children per women for the first time, a United Nations report says.
The findings reflect trends, common among many researchers including the U.S. Census Bureau, that suggest the world population boom that had been feared in recent decades would not come to pass. A key factor has been the unexpected drop in the fertility rate.
The U.N. report, released Tuesday, said the fertility rate of 2.9 came as people across developing nations are waiting longer to marry and have children, and are using family planning including contraception more often.”
So now you’ve got the UN saying the same thing. Do you reject their projections and statistics as well??? Perhaps we should consult Wikipedia to get the real scoop...
I never made that claim. What I said is that the CIA is not a neutral, scientific organization. The Wikipedia article is a good one, citing lots of primary sources...and many of these sources must also be behind the CIA report.
The CIA have no motivation to fudge birthrate statistics around the world
The CIA is a political organization, very political in its public pronouncements. Demography is a highly sensitive subject, politically. Religion, economics, ideology can be very, very threatened by certain findings. Privately, the CIA is charged to give the best advice it can to government officials. Publicly, it's quite dangerous to challange those officials.
However, since you like the CIA, take a look at this and google "CIA+overpopulation".
Perhaps we should consult Wikipedia to get the real scoop...
So you still haven't read the article. What is it with you? And now you're citing the U.N. as an unimpeachable source? How droll.
If you'd read the article, and the CIA links I posted, you'd see that those fertility rate drops do not justify your rosy interpretation. We're still going to see massive destabilizing, immigration and environmental degredation, and maybe real collapse.
In addition, I said I don't believe the demographers because what they are claiming contradicts what I see and what my friends see...in California and many other places.
The link I provided in my last post doesn’t work correctly. You’ll have to google “global trends 2015”, second source. I viewed it as HTML but it is a pdf document.
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.