Posted on 11/27/2005 2:48:58 PM PST by Imnotalib
The Baby Bust In the 1970s, sociologists warned that overpopulation was the greatest threat facing humanity. Today, birth rates are dropping around the globe, and experts speak darkly of “depopulation.” What’s wrong with fewer people? 11/11/2005
How quickly is the birth rate declining? The global fertility rate now stands at 2.9 children for every woman of child-bearing age—a decrease of nearly 50 percent since 1972. According to the latest U.N. projections, the world’s fertility rate will fall below “replacement” levels by 2045, meaning that the human population will start shrinking. For a population to remain stable, the fertility rate must be 2.1 in nations with low infant mortality, and higher where more die in early childhood. Some 60 countries are now operating below replacement levels. “Never in the last 650 years, since the time of the Black Plague,” said sociologist Ben Wattenberg, “have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places.”
What’s causing the decline? A variety of factors. Contraception is more reliable and readily available than ever. In the developed world, large numbers of women are pursuing higher education and careers, delaying marriage and childbirth, and having smaller families. In recent decades, developed countries have also seen a major migration from the farms to the cities. On farms, children’s labor benefits the family, but in urban areas, the high cost of raising children provides economic incentive to keep family size down.
Why is this a concern? The decline in birth rates isn’t universal. About 99 percent of the projected population growth from 6.5 billion to 7 billion people over the next seven years will occur in the Third World. Birth rates in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are nearly triple that of the industrialized world. That means the gap between rich and poor nations—and between the West and Muslim nations—will grow wider, causing deeper resentment, greater friction, and more international instability. “The countries which are experiencing rapid population growth are countries that are really in trouble,” said Peter Kostmayer of the pro-population-control group Population Connection. “They’re not stable.”
What are the other implications? The economies of the U.S. and Western European nations could be hobbled by a shortage of workers, and safety-net programs such as Social Security will face a crisis. As older people in the West live into their late 70s and 80s, there will be fewer young people to fill important jobs—and pay the taxes that fund Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. Western Europe is particularly vulnerable to this “graying” phenomenon. The average fertility rate in Europe is 1.4 children per woman, far below the replacement rate. In Italy and Spain, it’s just 1.3. Japan has population woes too. With a fertility rate of 1.3 children (and a mere .99 in Tokyo), Japan this year is projected to experience its first population decline. In Russia, due to a combination of lower birth rates and higher mortality rates, the population has been shrinking by about 750,000 a year.
What about the U.S.? Compared to the rest of the developed world, the U.S. is holding its own. The U.S. birth rate dropped to a low of 1.7 children in 1976, and then started inching back up to its current mark of 2.1. But the picture gets more complicated when the numbers are broken down by race and region. In 2002, the birth rate for white women was 1.83 babies. Birth rates among blacks (2.2) and Hispanics (3.0) are above the replacement rate; combined with steady immigration, it means that America is progressively becoming a browner nation. Since 2000, Hispanics have accounted for half the growth in the U.S. population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that whites will become the minority in the U.S. at some point between 2040 and 2050.
What’s wrong with that? Some conservatives argue that America’s strengths flow from its traditional European Protestant values, and they worry this will be a weaker country if those values are heavily diluted. Many economists, though, contend that with white birth rates low, the growth in the Hispanic and other minority populations may provide the workers that will save both the economy and the social safety net. “If we didn’t have these elements, we would be moving into a situation like Japan and Europe,” said Lewis Goodman, a Latin America expert at American University.
Why are whites having fewer babies? Actually, not all whites are. Whites in the West and the South have more babies than those in the Northeast. Birth rates among whites are lower in urban areas than in suburban and rural areas, and higher among the religiously observant than in non-churchgoers. People who describe themselves as socially conservative are having far more babies than those who consider themselves liberal. One recent study found that differences in fertility rates accounted for 70 percent of the decline in mainline Protestant church membership since 1900 and the simultaneous rise in conservative church membership. The political implications of this phenomenon have already been felt.
In what way? The segments of the white population that are growing are in the “red” states, and lean heavily Republican. In the last presidential election, in fact, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest. Democrats dominated in the low-birthrate urban areas such as Manhattan and San Francisco, but fared poorly in places like the outer suburbs, where families are bigger. “Conservative, religious-minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal and secular counterparts,” says Phillip Longman, author of The Empty Cradle. “If Metros don’t start having more children, America’s future is Retro.”
Problem is that in my experience at least, it's not the clearly religious that are having lots of kids, but the clearly lazy. Seems like families on the dole are the largest these days.
Not to worry, Hollywood is coming to the rescue with remakes of the 70's "Cheaper by the Dozen" 1 and now 2, "Your's Mine and Our's". Haven't heard of a remake of "With 6 You Get Eggroll" yet.
US fertility rate is 2.08; birthrate is 14.14 per 1000 of pop.
Mex fertility rate is 2.45; birthrate is 21.01 per 1000 of pop.
I have seen published the year 2016 as when there will be no more mexicans left to migrate to the US. I think that is early but it will eventually happen.
It has also been said that sometime after that date, the mexicans will begin returning home.
For those that think there are too many mexicans here, just wait until there are not enough.
I was thinking about this, but the idea of Mexicans who talk with a Baawston accent is a little too much.
Interesting, thanks!
Imagery of Kerry or Kennedy doing this makes me shudder. At least Barney Frank isn't a contender for such activities.
Possibly aborting themselves out of existence too.
"As nice as that sounds, I doubt it. Political beliefs are not genetic and the correlation between parents beliefs and children's beliefs is not especially high."
True but liberals who believe in abortions are more likely to have abortions. Convervatives tend to have babies and larger families to. Over time it adds up. IMHO
Just as you cannot feel the titianic shift of the earth's continetal plates doesn't mean it it does not move.
I read recently that due to the reasons you point out, 5 to 6 nations in western Europe will have a Muslim majority by 2020 if nothing changes.
You wouldn't be surprised if you knew the lengths certain organizations (including U.S. ones) were going to make sure this happens. This has been going on since the 60's. Many Mexican women are sterilized in the hospital after they give birth- usually without adequate explanation of what the surgery is.
70's? Cheaper by the Dozen was made in 1950, and Your's, Mine and Ours was amde in 1968.
they will just find chinese, or indians to take their place.
The figures are basically right. It may even be a bit less than 2.9 world wide now, as India is following CHina to quite low levels, and almost all of the very high countries are coming down at least some. The CIA Fact Book, or world population reports by both the US census and the UN, are broadly accurate, though there are some PC problems. The UN had Cambodia's population growing nicely all during Pol Pot's massacres. But on a world-wide bais , the reports of current conditions are broadly accurate.
there seem to be more homosexuals these days than at anyt ime I can remember.
Consider, all of the current non-Muslim Frenchmen, e.g., who don't die in the next 15 years, will be alive then, plus even whatever reduced number of babies they have. If you compare that number with the current muslims in France, even with a huge birth rate, you don't get anywhere near a majority, unless you postulate immigration at many times current rates.
Sorry but I don't remember where I read it other than it was a credible source. I do remember that the article said if the trend increases a little in favor of Muslims, Germany would be #6. It's possible you're right about 2050 as opposed to 2020.
I was in Amsterdam last December and saw Muslims everywhere we looked. The Dutch response to the Holocaust apparently was to avoid anything that even looks like discrimination, consequently they will let in practically anyone.
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.