March 17, 2003
"NOW IT TURNS OUT"?:
Humanity's Slowing Growth (NY Times, March 17, 2003)A generation ago, Paul Ehrlich warned in "The Population Bomb" that with demands on resources soaring, overpopulation would kill our planet. As demands on water and air soared, many thought he was right. Now it turns out that population growth rates are plummeting--for good and tragic reasons. The implications are profound.According to a United Nations report issued recently, most advanced countries could, in effect, slowly turn into old-age homes. For example, by 2050, the median age in Japan and Italy will be over 50. Fertility rates in nearly all well-off countries have already fallen below 2.1 babies per woman, the rate at which a population remains stable.
In the developing world, fertility rates average three children, down from six a half-century ago, and the U.N. projects that the rate will dip below the
replacement level in most poor countries later this century. Slower growth rates are both the cause and consequence of a higher standard of living, and of the emancipation of women.There are also alarming reasons for the drop in the population growth rate--notably the H.I.V./AIDS epidemic. It is one of the factors the United Nations cited in revising its 2050 world population projections, from 9.3 billion people down to 8.9 billion (we're at 6.3 billion today). The U.N. estimates that there will be a half-billion fewer people in the 53 nations most afflicted by AIDS than there would have been. [...]
Aging populations will pose an economic challenge for most wealthy nations as smaller working-age populations will have to pay for the health and pension benefits of a growing number of longer-living retirees.
Even a cursory understanding of these demographic trends makes two things clear. Helping poor countries improve their economies is not a matter of charity but of intelligent foreign policy. And no matter how much progress is made, there will be large population shifts into better-off nations. The immigrants will need the jobs and the richer countries will need the workers. So increasing the orderly, legal migration of labor from poorer to richer countries in the next few decades is a global imperative. Those who oppose this trend will be embracing long-term economic suicide.
One supposes they deserve some credit for finally noticing, but what a paltry understanding they demonstrate and what fear they show of mentioning one of the most obvious causes of the demographic crisis.
Certainly the developed world will require massive immigration if it is not to collapse, but combine that outflow with already falling birthrates in the underdeveloped world and you've a recipe for permanent poverty there. Is Africa to be just a mammoth cemetery/safari park?
Meanwhile, mightn't we expect that a story like this would at least mention abortion? "Fertility rates" has such a polite sound to it, but the reality is that there are entire nations and even several American counties that have more abortions than live births every year. We're not just having fewer children, we're killing off the babies who would help solve this crisis. We are, in the Timesmen's own phrase "embracing long-term economic suicide", but it's a murder/suicide pact.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 17, 2003 6:58 PMI doubt abortion has anything to do with fertility rates. The abolition of abortion would lower the pregnancy to live birth ratio, but I doubt seriously it would cause women to suddenly adjust upwards the number of children they want.
Instead, they would almost certainly get more obsessive about birth control prior to their desired pregnancies, and have far more tubal ligations afterwards.
Or, get real darn insistent their husbands get snipped. That worked for my wife (2.0 kids)
Regards,
Jeff:
i think we're safe from the specter of people taking more responsibility for their sex lives.
Mr. Judd-- They also ignore one reason people have less children is because the government has stepped into the role adult children used to have, i.e. being responsible for aged parents. Since it is not neccesary to rely on children in old age it is increasingly perceived that children are a burden, have little value, are less fulfilling than careers and will add nothing to your quality of life.
Posted by: Buttercup at March 18, 2003 7:08 AMButtercup:
Absolutely. It is the particular genius of the welfare state to destroy all rival institutions and make the individual completely dependent on government alone.
Actually, you get that same result from good old capitalist prosperity. In Muslim parts of Punjab, for example.
And abortion is very common in China but population is still rising. I'll admit there are special circumstances there, but I disagree with all of you on this one.
Human reproduction is pretty mysterious, but the two easy formulas (abortion is the reason for low fertility) (government paternalism is the reason) are obviously wrong.
Harry:
That's spectacularly wrong. China, with fertility rates already below replacement level, faces imminent population collapse, exacerbated by a shortage of women.
OJ:
Harry's point is actually well taken--that something is happening does not make the reasons stipulated for it correct.
Female infanticide has long been a staple of certain societies, and the availability of abortion as a birth control option probably has nothing to do with the number of children women desire to have.
I think the demographic transition has everything to do with modern society. The cost-benefit calculation has gone from "how many hands to run the farm" to "how many kids can we put through college (or how much self gratification per kid do we have to forego)"
Regards,
Odd that the most modern society--ours--does not have those same problems to that degree.
Posted by: oj at March 19, 2003 12:54 PMOther variables could be population density and cost of living. I won't argue W. Europe is over populated, but the population density, in general, is much higher than here.
If I remember correctly (and I may well not), England has about 64 million people in roughly the area of Minnesota.
Additionally, the cost of living is far higher, thanks to generally extortionate taxation levels. That could significantly effect the cost-benefit ratio.
Besides, the difference isn't all that great. The UK (again, I think) is about 1.85 children/woman, vs. right around or just under 2 for the US.
China's population may well be on the verge of collapse -- I have been predicting civil war and resultant famine for some time, and I'm sticking with that -- but it's still adding (according to a statement to the People's Congress yesterday) 10 million workers per year.
It's sex imbalance is why I said it makes a special case. But abortion is as available as rice, and the population is not collapsing. Social preferences are setting it up for a collapse, but that's another animal.