Posted on 02/06/2003 7:44:17 PM PST by friendly
If Russia's sharply declining birth rate is any indication, depopulation, and not an overabundance of humans straining Earth's resources, is the real threat humanity faces.
Russia, writes Dr. Herbert London, president of Hudson Institute and the John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at New York University, is providing a lesson for the world of the dangers of depopulation.
And the problem of depopulation isn't merely Russia's - the whole Western world is facing a crisis of declining populations. Canada's National Post columnist Mark Steyn recently wrote that Italy's population decline matches Russia's.
"Because the state needs a birth rate of 2.1 children to maintain a stable population," Steyn revealed. "In Italy, it's now 1.2. Twenty years ago, a million babies were born there each year. Now it's half a million. And the fewer babies you have today, the fewer babies are around to have babies in 20 years.
"Once you're as far down the death spiral as Italy is, it's hard to reverse. Most European races are going to be out of business in a couple more generations."
Noting the Wall Street Journal's prediction Jan. 24 that "The world's population could decline by nearly 500 million people by 2075," London wrote in the Hudson Institute’s American Outlook, "As notable as this statistic is, it pales in comparison to the demographic condition in Russia at the moment.
"The most recent predictions indicate a decline in the Russian population of twenty million people in the next decade due to an excessively low birthrate of 1.2 children per family (well below replacement level) and a rise in the death rate because of widespread alcoholism and the spread of disease.
"According to one Professor Antonov, 'Two thirds of Russian territory is settled now as sparsely as it was in the Neolithic Age: less than one person per square kilometer. In other words, east of the Urals, a demographic wasteland is superimposed on the geographic wasteland.'"
London blames "a dramatic decline in the desire for reproduction among the younger generation," explaining that "the prevalence of one-child families, the decline in the number of recorded marriages, the increase in cohabitation, and the rise in divorce are all symptoms of this condition."
London ascribes much of the problem to "the virtual breakdown of the traditional family." Another source, he warns, is an emerging belief "virtually unchallenged in social science that divorce and 'only-children families' are actually desirable conditions that must be protected. An undeclared war is being conducted against those who identify a crisis in the family and a resulting demographic implosion."
As a result of all of this, "if nothing dramatic occurs in Russia, to encourage larger families, the retreat from childbearing will continue and accelerate. Two children in a family will certainly no longer be the norm and, as a consequence, Russia could become a nation of only one hundred million in thirty years (it is about 149 million today)."
This sharp decline, London predicts, "could decide Russia's geopolitical fate. A decline of fifty million people could undermine the territorial integrity of that vast nation." The decline could also "undermine any effort to create industrial market capitalism, which depends on mass production and mass markets."
Accompanying the collapse of the family, London said, is a social atmosphere that produces "a revision in cultural perspectives has led to an unprecedented level of prestige bestowed on homosexual behavior as well as evidence of an increased rate of suicide."
Such conditions, he warned "not only threaten the familial foundation of civilization, but human self-preservation itself."
Russia, along with much of the West, "is in the midst of an historic revolution that is weakening the family, devaluing the role of children, and threatening depopulation ... It is no exaggeration to contend that Russia's future, and perhaps the fate of other nations, depends on the restoration of family- and child- centered lives. A relentless drive for consumer gratification and self-fulfillment have taken us down a path that threatens societal well being," he wrote.
Steyn's outlook is even gloomier, and he blames abortion as on of the prime causes of depopulation. "A society whose political class elevates 'a woman's right to choose' above 'go forth and multiply' is a society with a death wish," he wrote. And "today we're the endangered species, not the spotted owl. We're the dwindling resource, not the oil."
Steyn recommends: "Next time you're in a rundown diner and the 17-year-old waitress is eight months pregnant, don't tut "What a tragedy" and point her to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. Leave her a large tip instead. She's doing the right thing, not just for her, but for all of us."
The surest way to limit population growth is to RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING.
All the time spent on line, watching TV, driving, skiing, reading, going to the theater, etc. is time not spent doing the horizontal bop.
That's cheap entertainment for the masses who can't afford candles to stay up late - may as well go lay down...
No, it's about calling someone on their hypocrisy, which you apparently can't see...
The historic eastern boundary of Russia (and Europe) is the Ural Mountains.
Absolutely not. You have the right to have your opinion heard just as So9 should have. Hey, I might have wanted to pile on and poke him the eye also, but since I can't see his post I don't know. He might be reallllly eeevil or simply an incorrigble curmudgeon. One thing is certain, he is unable to defend his comments for at least a week and that seems unwarranted. Overkill, if you will.
Perhaps you would think so. I'm divorced. Getting divorced beat suicide. I adopted my ex's child from a previous (anulled) relationship. We started one from scratch. Statistically we didn't quite replace ourselves.
Since we are asking personal questions, how many children do you have/plan to have?
An absolute flat tax would neither reward nor punish someone for decisions about marriage, children, whether to rent or buy a home, what business to engage in. They could make their personal decisions based on what made sense to them, not some social(ist) "engineer".
BTW, "Social engineer" is a term I loath. In no field of engineering would such a disconnect between results and intents be tolerated!
Well, uh, yes. That is what I've been sayin'.... I can't see the danged thang. FOFLOL
I note that Servant of the Nine said he has one child...
And wants five billion people to die a horrible death because, in his words, There is nothing the other billions can do except get in my way and irritate me.
That's just plain sick.
If So9 thinks the world is overcrowded by five billion, he thinks the appropriate action is for OTHERS to die because of his views. That's hypocrisy. Kinda like Arianna Huffington saying us peons shouldn't drive big comfy SUVs as she jets around the country in her private jet. Except So9's viewpoint is far worse.
Do you think HE was exaggerating? There are a lot of people in the eco-movement who feel the exact same way about humanity - that we are a virus, a disease that must be eliminated from the planet. Kinda like Nazi eugenics wearing Bierkenstocks...
I've know him through FR for years. He was exagerating.
A little.
;^)
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.