Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/25/2026 9:57:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A number has come to dominate conversations about national survival: 2.1.
This is the total fertility rate required to maintain a stable population in developed nations, the threshold demographers call the replacement rate. Below it, demographers warn, societies face inevitable decline, irreversible aging, and fiscal collapse. Governments have structured immigration policy and long-term planning around this single figure as though it were the pulse of civilization itself.
The replacement rate is primarily a demographic and actuarial metric, designed to answer one question: Will there be enough workers to sustain pension systems, healthcare costs, and tax revenues as a population ages? It says nothing about language, law, civic identity, or the transmission of values that make a civilization recognizable across generations.
A nation is not a balance sheet.
It is a living inheritance of institutions, cultural norms, and a common civic framework. To treat the replacement rate as a measure of civilizational health is to confuse the payroll with the enterprise.
The case for doing so rests on assumptions rarely examined. Each one is questionable, context-dependent, or demonstrably false.
Assumption One: Population Size Determines National Health
The replacement rate models population stability—whether a society will have roughly as many people in the next generation as it has now.
It was never designed to measure whether those people will sustain the institutions and values that make a particular way of life worth living.
Acemoglu and Robinson’s Why Nations Fail demonstrates that the difference between prosperous and failing states lies almost entirely in institutional quality—rule of law, control of corruption, social trust—not population size. Douglas North’s foundational work reaches the same conclusion.
Singapore, with approximately six million people and a fertility rate well below replacement, is among the wealthiest and best-governed nations on earth. The most populous nations are not the most successful.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I read today that the state of Georgia is no longer a majority white state. We are being replaced.
I don’t agree with all his assumptions. They’re more like straw dogs that he shoots down.
Also, he seems to be taking a short-term view. The replacement formula is vital because otherwise our current society and economy collapses. Our economy is based upon ratios of young to elderly.
I do agree that importing workers is not a solution if they change the culture.
I do agree that society can adapt to various ratios.
What he doesn’t consider is the vitality of having a young, burgeoning population and how that invigorates society.
Nor does he consider the birth dearth as a symptom of a worse problem—not valuing human life. Beginning with abortion, that alone is sufficient to cause these population collapses. Ban it now.
Another problem is not valuing marriage as an essential institution to society. Children out of wedlock or from single mothers tend to become criminals.
Bottom line, not valuing children and marriage leads to societal collapse, of which the birth rate collapse is a symptom.
this is BS! it’s like climate whattever! Too HOT,Too Cold!
Too many people, not enough people and bring in the dregs of the world into Western suicidal countries including ourselves!
due to Social Security
If we get rid of Social Security, we can manage a decline in population. We have 340 million right now. If we have zero immigration. 1.0 fertility rate. We'll go down to 165 million by 2100. We have AI so we can build robots to provide the necessary labor.
Fascinating. Singapore, Korea, and Japan have very low birthrates but are doing ok. Robots-necessity being the mother of invention. There will always be a group of people the rest of us will have to carry but we don’t have to import them. We already got enough. Those Trump accounts won’t grow fast enough.
They may have limited benefits for the elderly so it may not be too expensive for them.
They are not having issues with immigration unlike the West.
If you're an immigrant working in Dubai, you're there to work. Not to claim benefits.
Obviously in the West, the ruling parties want immigrants to collect benefits so they'll get their votes forever.
Our politicians are not in office to garden a plot of ground called “USA”, their job is to represent and protect “Americans”. If he thinks we’re not having enough children, it’s not his business. The purpose of immigration is not to manage demographics. It should only serve the interests of American citizens. First, foremost, only.
The only people who should be considered for immigrant status are people who admire us and want to be us, and then only in numbers that can be easily absorbed.
If you replace Frenchmen with Afghanis, you will still have a geographical region on the map called “France” but France as a civilization no longer exists. For example.
“We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”
Richard Lamm. Colorado governor(Democrat).
Problem solved.
Our economy is based on profit and loss.
It's the government ponzi schemes that are based on population ratios of young to elderly.
We can't save ponzi schemes with open borders.
A major realigning is coming where the growth will be seen in Africa, offsetting losses from pretty much everywhere else. China is not stupid and has been aligning itself with and making large investments in Africa.
The dawn of robots is eliminating the need for a workforce to provide for an ever growing population, which in turn requires an ever growing workforce to sustain it.
the pension system would in theory work... if it was planned by a financial advisor and not klepto commies.
15% of your life time income forcibly stored in an investment account and tied to your estate, backed up by a life insurance policy payable to the estate...
you and everyone in your immediate and extended family.
you’d be set. your kids would be set. their kids would be set. etc.
but then, if we did this, then people wouldn’t need govt for handouts.
“Our economy is based on profit and loss.
It’s the government ponzi schemes that are based on population ratios of young to elderly.
We can’t save ponzi schemes with open borders.”
Right, but I wasn’t thinking about SS at all. You need young people to start new businesses and provide beginning workers to the workforce.
You need young people to produce babies. No babies, no future population. No population, no profits.
Young people have the most energy and do the most work.
Demographics is destiny. No children, no future.
I say this as a 70-year-old.
Social security was funded by workers. It has been robbed by politicians to gain votes from people who chose not to work. POLITICIAN is almost universally a dirty word. Some are decent but most are greedy villains.
That said, Social Security is a ponzi scheme.
In the early Social Security era, only about 54–61% of workers who reached working age lived long enough to collect benefits at 65, whereas today roughly 85–93% do—and they collect benefits for about 5–6 more years on average.
So we should raise the retirement age to 75.
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.