Aging Global Population is "Profound" and "Irreversible": UN Report

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | August 16, 2007 | Elizabeth O'Brien

[monomaniac]

Aging Global Population is "Profound" and "Irreversible": UN Report

States that lowered fertility is the cause, but fails to mention birth control, again

By Elizabeth O'Brien

NEW YORK CITY, August 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations recently released its global population estimates, revealing an alarming population shift that will have serious worldwide consequences within the near future. While blaming the problem on lowered fertility and increased longevity, the report fails to make the connection with contraception, abortion and sterilization.

The report is a 2007 updated version of the 2002 "World Population Aging" report that was published during the Second World Assembly on Aging. Following the demographic trends from 1950 to 2005, the report notes that the population aging is "unprecedented, a process without parallel in the history of humanity." The report indicates that people above 60 years old are starting to outnumber children, those under age 15. By 2047 old people will outnumber children on a global scale, the report states, although developed countries already reached this mark in 1998.

The report projects that by 2050, those aged 60 and over will comprise one third of the population in developed regions. In the developing nations, however, they will account for only one fifth of the population, a ratio at which the wealthier countries have already arrived.

The population trend profoundly affects every area of human life-economic, political and social-and is "irreversible", the report claims. In addition, the issue has been intensifying for decades; older people comprised 8% of the population in 1950, and this number increased to 11% by 2007. The UN predicts that the number will rise to 22% by 2050.

By the year 2000 the number of old people had tripled in the world since 1950. Only six year later, they had increased by another 100 million. The rate of their increase is 2.6% per year versus the 1.1% increase of the rest of the population. In addition, even those over 60 years are aging, and the number of people aged 80+ is most rapidly increasing.

At present the median age worldwide is 28 years, a number that is expected to rise to 38 by 2050. The oldest country is Japan, with a median age of 43, while the youngest is Uganda, with a median age of 15.

These numbers will have a serious effect on the working population, which will be forced to bear an increasingly heavy burden of retirees. By 2050 the ratio of workers between 15 and 64 to older persons will have decreased from 12 to 1 in 1950 to a mere 4 to 1.

The report notes that the problem of population aging is a "pervasive," worldwide issue. This is due to the fact that people's fertility is reduced, as well as the fact that the aged are living longer. As the document states, "The resulting slowdown in the growth of the number of children coupled with the steady increase in the number of older persons" has deeply impacted the balance of society.

This "unprecedented change, which started in the developed world in the nineteenth century and is more recent in developing countries" is right now "transforming many societies." The report blames the skewed population ratios on the rapid switch from high to low fertility levels and increased life expectancy. Nevertheless, once again a major population report fails characteristically to mention any connection between these alarming population rates and the rapid spread of abortion, contraception and sterilization in the past century.

Read Summary of UN Population Report: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPA2007/wpp2007.htm

Read related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Aging of World Population, Not Population Growth, is Cause for Alarm: Population Researcher
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06072102.html

Aging Population, Low Birth Rate Will Place Massive Economic Burden on Younger Canadians: Report
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061804.html

Canada's Population is Aging at an Alarming Rate: 2006 Census
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07072603.html

[gridlock]

I am sure the UN can come up with a “solution” to this problem. Perhaps the solution will involve centralization of medical services, so care can be withheld from those suffering from “terminal conditions”, such as advanced age.

And, of course, the definition of “advanced age” can be adjusted as necessary to achieve the desired result.

[Thrownatbirth]

The population trend profoundly affects every area of human life-economic, political and social-and is "irreversible"

We have to thank the great minds at the UN for uncovering the startling fact that "people grow old and there's not much you can do about it".

[gridlock]

If individuals are permitted to plan for themselves and provide for themselves, there is no reason to fear this demographic shift. In fact, it will result in a golden age of plentiful consumption bidding up the value of the labor of the younger generation, leading to full employment and happiness for all.

However, if centralized government takes the lead in planning for the retirement and providing for seniors, the result will be a neglect of basic responsibilities by individuals, a lack of savings and planning, and muderously high tax burdens on the productive class as the number of people living beyond their productive years grows.

The road of freedom leads to prosperity and happiness for all. The road of socialism leads to inevitable disaster. I wonder which road we will take?

[WILLIALAL]

I keep telling my kids they have just 20 years to prepare for unsettling changes that are going to sweep the world, and there are some hard times ahead not only for the U.S., but for the entire world.
We have skated through the easy times, now the bills will be coming due for those who thought life could be lived through selfish individualism and a credit card, and I’m not talking about just individuals, but also nations.

[Right Wing Assault]

And they didn’t see this coming? Unintended consequences. Of course now they can have a drive for euthanasia for old people. Starting with those over 90 and slowly lowering it until they reach the population they want.

[Tax-chick]

I’ve noticed that I’m getting older, and I don’t expect that will change ...

[WILLIALAL]

The problem is generational conflict. Look at the social programs in place across the industrialized nations. It is all set up to provide life’s support for older people. Extend the life expectancy and decrease fertility, and you are heading for a generational war. Just try to tell an older person they are not going to get their health benefits they were promised. As a larger and larger segment of the voting population, the older generation will out vote the younger generation and the end result will be devastating tax increases or hyperinflation. Either way economic destruction.
It is irreversible unless people are paid to have more children immediately. Dark days are coming.

[trek]

Thank you abortionists. Happily, time will reverse this trend as we approach the point when your non-existent progeny no longer skew the demographics.

[WILLIALAL]

Unfortunately we don’t have that much time.

[Marathoner]

Yep, when abortion happens, can euthanasia be far behind? Once the government controls health care, they will have life and death power to the extreme.

[gridlock]

You are correct in identifying the social programs as the source of the problem. They are promises that these countries will not be able to keep. When the promises are broken, it is going to lead to intergenerational conflict.

We see it already. It is going to get a lot worse.

The only solution is to stop making such stupid promises. If people were allowed to keep their own money and make their own plans, there would be no promise to break. If an individual plans poorly and winds up destitute, there will be no body to fight with but himself. But, given the opportunity, the vast majority of people will be responsible, and provide for themselves far better than the government ever could.

The problem is that relying on the promises of government seems to many to be a rational plan. They fail to see that the promises must be broken. Furthermore, so much of their income is confiscated, it is difficult to plan for the future while also meeting current needs. The scarcity of money after taxation combines with the hope of government support leads many productive people to make the decision to let somebody else worry about their retirement.

It is this incorrect decision that is at the heart of the crisis. However, governments around the World do their best to make sure people make this incorrect decision, because it justifies their higher tax rates and creates a dependent class that can be counted on to support the government prerogative at every turn.

[gridlock]

Once the government controls health care, they will have life and death power to the extreme.

Why do you think there is such a rush to get Universal Health Care passed now?

Why do you think one of the central tenents of Hillarycare was the prohibition of the purchase of medical care outside the government plan?

You can't very well let seniors die of neglect if they can go out and buy their own care, can you?

[trek]

"However, governments around the World do their best to make sure people make this incorrect decision, because it justifies their higher tax rates and creates a dependent class that can be counted on to support the government prerogative at every turn."

Yes but governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --{and} whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. This pretty much sums it up for me.

[ran20]

I agree with your assessment and cure. Reminds me whatever a government subsidize it gets more of, whatever a government punishes it gets less of.

Most developed nations massively subsidize older people. So we get more older people, and less young productive people. The way out is to increase subsidy for children of productive people, and decrease benefits for elderly until we get to an equilibrium that is ‘sustainable’.

Of course cutting down benefits to the elderly is impossible in a democratic system where they are such a large voting block. I agree with the Rovian assessment that if Bush didn’t pass that perscription drug bill, Kerry would have had a real issue to run on in the 2004 election and we would likely have Kerry as president.

[gridlock]

Oh, we’ll get there, soon enough, if we keep on the way we are going.

It would be nice, however, if we did not have to go down that road.

Oh, BTW, the other push that is going along at the same time as Universal Healtcare (or Universal Death By Neglect, if you will), is that the government wants to take away your guns.

Then where will you be?

[WILLIALAL]

You are exactly right. But the problem is also generational in that we are now on the second almost third generation that expects government to be the solution to all problems. It has now become ingrained into our social fabric, and I feel almost impossible to change. Look what happened to Bush’s social security proposals. They were modest, but got nowhere because of political bickering by the Democrats for their own short term gains. Imagine what the battle will be when Medicare has to be fixed? Any bets on how that will turn out? Can anyone say political fear mongering and grandstanding by the liberals?
No the future is scary for our kids and grandkids. We are on an almost unstoppable train wreck. And this will be repeated world wide, starting with Japan, then Europe then us in short order.

[twntaipan]

Of course it is profound and irreversible as long as abortion is a more valued choice than is life itself.

[trek]

"Then where will you be?"

Texas.

[gridlock]

Texas.

Perhaps The Republic of Texas. Wouldn't that be nice?