WITH A WHIMPER:

It Will Be a Smaller World After All: Remember the number 1.85. It is the lodestar of a new demography that will lead us to a different world. (BEN J. WATTENBERG, 3/08/03, NY Times)

In the United Nations' most recent population report, the fertility rate is assumed to be 1.85, not 2.1. This will lead, later in this century, to global population decline. [...]

The United Nations divides the world into two groups, less developed countries and more developed countries. The most surprising news comes from the poorer countries. In the late 1960's, these countries had an average fertility rate of 6.0 children per woman. Today it is 2.9 - and still falling. Huge and continuing declines have been seen in countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey and (of great importance to the United States) Mexico.

The more developed countries, in contrast, have seen their fertility rates fall from low to unsustainable. Every developed nation is now below replacement level. In the early 1960's, Europe's fertility rate was 2.6. Today the rate is 1.4, and has been sinking for half a century. In Japan the rate is 1.3. [...]

Among the more developed countries, the United States is the outlier nation, with the highest fertility rate - just under 2.1. Moreover, the United States takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. Accordingly, in the next 50 years America will grow by 100 million people. Europe will lose more than 100 million people.

When populations stabilize and then actually shrink, the economic dislocations can be severe. Will there be far less demand for housing and office space? Paradoxically, a very low fertility rate can also yield labor shortages, pushing wages higher. Of course, such shortages in countries with low fertility rates could be alleviated by immigration from countries with higher fertility rates - a migration from poor countries to rich ones. But Europeans are actively trying to reduce immigration, especially since 9/11. Wisely, America has mostly resisted calls for restrictions on immigrants. [...]

Still, it is the geopolitical implications of this change that may well be the most important. There is not a one-to-one relationship between population and power. But numbers matter. Big nations, or big groups of nations acting in concert, can become major powers. China and India each have populations of more than a billion; their power and influence will almost surely increase in the decades to come. Europe will shrink and age, absolutely and relatively.

Should the world face a "clash of civilizations," America may find itself with weaker allies. It may then be forced to play a greater role in defending and promoting the liberal, pluralist beliefs and values of Western civilization. We may have to do more, not because we want to, but because we have to.

It is not possible to analyze things like the split between America and Europe without taking account of numbers like these, yet how often do you seem them mentioned in such stories? Europe, in ways that are only beginning to dawn on people, just doesn't matter to our future, because it has no future. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 8, 2003 6:32 AM