Room for More: Population Is Declining

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 01-19-07 | Patti Maguire Armstrong

[cowtowney]

"Option 2, if carried out on a wide scale, would wreak complete havoc on the American economy. As average household incomes nosedived, we'd go into an economic depression that would easily rival the depression of the 1930's."

So you believe that if everyone spent less than they made and put the rest in savings that that is a formula for economic depression for America?

[linda_22003]

That's out of line - just as criticizing someone for not having children is out of line. It's a personal decision either way.

[EODGUY]

Very interesting article, Salvation.

I haven't read all of the posts, but noting post #8, I would recommend that "America Alone" by Mark Steyn answers many of the questions about zero and negative population growth of nations throughout the world and why it poses a danger to every indigenous culture of those nations.

The book is excellent and frightening at the same time. Western Europe believes immigrants are going to replace children of their respective native cultures to ensure their pensions and other government needs are funded. However there is no guarantee that this funding will continue once a country is taken over (and it doesn't take a majority) by an immigrant population.

The book I referenced above paints a grim, albeit accurate picture of our world if only certain ethnic groups, particularly those with a professed desire for conquest, are the ones reproducing at a rate that exceeds zero population growth.


EODGUY

[Arthalion]

So you believe that if everyone spent less than they made and put the rest in savings that that is a formula for economic depression for America?

I believe that if you cut average household incomes by 30% to 50% nationwide and eliminated all non-essential spending that yes, you would get a depression. Living in a capitalist society means that people need to spend money for the economy to work. Take away half the money, and the economy implodes. The biggest sectors hit would be real estate. How would you like to be the one to see the value of your $300,000 home slashed to $150,000 because average incomes were cut by half...and average buying power right along with it. Most modern pricing, on real estate especially, but in many different sectors, would be completely unsustainable.

In 2002, the latest year I have numbers for, the median HOUSEHOLD income in the U.S. was a smidge over $42,000 a year. In that same year, the median INDIVIDUAL income was $22,800. It's really not a complex argument. What happens to the economy when you take all of those working women out of the workforce and that nationwide individual income BECOMES the household income? It doesn't take a lot of thinking to realize how badly that would cripple the U.S. economy. We're not talking about a minor economic downturn here, like we saw after 9/11,or even a prolonges economic slump like we enjoyed under Carter. We're talking a full blown depression, breadlines and all.

In the Great Depression incomes fell by 20% to 50%, and we all KNOW what that lead to. There is absolutely no debate on the economic impact that income loss had on the United States and the world at large. While the Christian intention may be good here, I can't help but wonder at the fact that so many people are willing to go through that all over again.

[firebrand]

Just because there are some people on the pro-death side who link the two (abortion and population), that does not mean that we have to do it too. It is right to be pro-life, and that means caring about the people eating gorillas and tree bark, and well as the little people on the way to being born.

Would you say we should be against car accidents because they decrease the world's population? Should the pro-abort crowd be for car accidents? That's how absurd her argument is. We're against them because they take human lives.

Just separate the two issues and you will be able to think more clearly.

Saving lives is not sleazy and dishonest. I don't recall saying that. Using erroneous statements about population to confuse everyone into being pro-life for the wrong reasons--that's sleazy.

[Salvation]

It IS a grim picture!

[beagle9]

"Using erroneous statements about population to confuse everyone into being pro-life for the wrong reasons--that's sleazy."

I am trying to understand your logic. To me, the premise of the article was fairly straightforward, that is, population growth was (is) not the problem that it once was portrayed to be. The underlying theme was that the "pro-choice" lobby used this rational overpopulation fear as a red herring for abortion rights. While the articles main thrust (IMO) is one of trying to explain that abortion is not needed for population control; because there is no population control problem to begin with; it does not say that abortion is the only reason for this false premise. Please tell me specifically where the the "erroneous statements" in the article are located. The other question is how can one be "pro-life for the wrong reason"? Are there some reasons where we should not be pro-life? Your underlying message seems to be that if a certain country is "overpopulated" then abortion is OK, at least in that country. The article is quite clear, in spite of what you call "people eating gorillas and tree bark", the overpopulation scare was and is a sham. Starvation is not the product of overpopulation, but inept food distribution, caused primarily by corrupt governments (Think Zimbabwe). I am pretty sure I am thinking clearly, but then again maybe not. LOL

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[eleni121]

It's not just about having more kids...although I wish people would do so---(there is some evidence that this is turning around thankfully - more women are quitting the workplace and staying home to raise their kids) It's about the work ethic disappearing too.

The Industrial Revolution developed mechanization in the agriculture sector and the result was that menial farm laborers became menial factory workers (not all of course--there are no machines yet that can pick lettuce and grapes for example - there is no motivation to do so either---farmers get subsidies and cheap willing so why bother). When US factories began moving overseas, the menial factory workers became menial service sector workers.

The Robot Revolution (just beginning) is different from the IR because it's not going to simply be a matter of replacing certain jobs because robots will be capable of doing any menial job that a human could do.

THE problem today is that the robotics revolution has not yet caught up to the late industrial conditions that exist here. It is still cheaper to import legally or illegally workers who can do the menial work that many American simply won't do at any wage!

[firebrand]

You are not thinking clearly at all if you think my underlying message is that if a country is overpopulated abortion is okay.

The "erroneous statements" were outlined in my first post on this thread.

The reason overpopulation is not the problem it once was is that books and organizations have publicized it, but it is quite definitely the overriding problem of our planet. To say food distribution is the problem is to blind oneself to the fact that all of our lives at this moment depend on reliable food distribution. If it fell apart, you and I would starve. The whole Rube Goldberg contraption could collapse at any time. We are very far removed from the food supply because of overpopulation and require these elaborate infrastructures to keep us going. Wherever they break down, you have starvation. "Food distribution" is a disgraceful rationalization for continuing to procreate wildly.

You are either willfully misinterpreting or pathetically misunderstanding what I say.

[beagle9]

"You are either willfully misinterpreting or pathetically misunderstanding what I say."

I think that may a little harsh don't you think? The whole premise of the article is that there is not an overpopulation problem. I agree with that premise as this is what all of the empirical data suggests. Invectives and attacks will not change these facts. You may want to read this.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/overpop/food.htm
Either way we will just have to agree to disagree on the subject of overpopulation as you seem convinced that it is a problem while I do not. Personal attacks are probably not the way to get anyone to see your point of view however.

[Klondike]

Perhaps one could ask, "Why do we need any people". Declining populations are certainly not a good to be sought. A stable population for economic reasons is not even a good.

[firebrand]

Good for you. You found one of the many sources of obfuscation on this problem.

Meanwhile, Earth is trapped between Venus and Mars and will probably never escape, with these two powerful demons having evolved along with us.

By the way, that was not a personal attack. It was a logical deduction from your misstatement of what I said. A personal attack would have been to call you a blind, stumbling, one-issue useful idiot of the fanatic and ignorant.

[beagle9]

I may be a "blind, stumbling, one-issue useful idiot of the fanatic and ignorant" but I think I will let the readers decide on who the blind, stumbling, one-issue useful idiot of the fanatic and ignorant is in this case. Thanks for the enlightening debate.

[firebrand]

I'm sure they'll appreciate your permission.