February 15, 2004
ALTERING THE POSSIBLE:
The Emptying of Russia (Nicholas Eberstadt, February 13, 2004, washingtonpost.com)
Population trends and demographic characteristics in Russia today are severely -- and adversely -- altering the realm of the possible for that country and its people. Russian social conditions, economic potential, military power and international influence are all affected, and the situation stands only to worsen.Russia is at the brink of a steep demographic decline -- a peacetime population hemorrhage framed by a collapse and a catastrophic surge, respectively, in the birth and death rates. The forces that have shaped this path of depopulation and debilitation are powerful and by now deeply rooted in Russian soil. Altering this demographic trajectory would be a formidable task under any circumstances. Unfortunately, neither Russia's political leadership nor its voting public have begun to face up to this enormous challenge.
On New Year's Day 1992 -- one week after the dissolution of the Soviet Union -- Russia's population was estimated at 148.7 million. As of mid-2003, according to the Russian State Statistics Committee, the Russian Federation's population was 144.5 million. This was by no means the only population loss recorded by any country during that period. According to estimates and projections by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, more than a dozen states experienced a population decline between midyear 1992 and midyear 2003, 10 of these amounting to drops greater than Russia's 3.1 percent. But unlike some of these drops -- e.g. Bosnia's -- Russia's could not be explained in terms of war and violent upheaval. In other places, population decline was due entirely to emigration. Russia, by contrast, absorbed a substantial net influx of migrants during those years -- a total net addition of more than 5.5 million.
Moreover, continuing population decline -- at a decidedly faster tempo -- is envisioned for Russia as far as demographers care to project into the future. The only question is how steep the downward path will be. [...]
In the decades immediately ahead, Russia seems likely to contend with a sharp falloff in its youth population. Between 1975 and 2000, the number of young men ages 15 to 24 ranged between 10 million and 13 million. By 2025, on current U.N. projections, the total will be barely 6 million. Apart from the obvious military implications of this decline, there would be economic and social reverberations. With fewer young people rising to replace the older retirees graduating from the Russian workforce, the question of improving (or perhaps maintaining) the average level of skills and qualifications in the economically active population would become that much more pressing. And since younger people the world over tend to be disposed toward and associated with certain kinds of discovery, innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking, a pronounced choking off of younger blood could have real consequences for Russia's social capabilities and economic responsiveness.
To the extent that Russian policymakers have concerned themselves with the country's negative natural increase problem, they have focused almost entirely on the birthrate -- and how to raise it. Not surprisingly, this pro-natalist impulse has foundered on the shoals of finance. In plain terms, raising the birthrate is an expensive business: especially when the potential parents are educated, urbanized women accustomed to paying careers. To induce a serious and sustained increase in childbearing, a government under such circumstances must be prepared to get into the business of hiring women to be mothers -- and this is a proposition that could make the funding of a national pension system look like pin money.
Meanwhile, Russian policy circles persist in treating the country's horrendous mortality rate with an insouciance verging on indifference.
What's surprising is not that the secular West is dying, but that it's so indifferent, even eager seeming, for that death. Thenm again, if a people believes in nothing it has only Darwinian survival instincts to fall back on, and we see how much good they are. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 15, 2004 8:41 AM
The demographic transition attending industrialization and women's unshackling from nature's reproductive tyranny has nothing to do with secularism, or lack thereof.
If God there be, he made a serious mistake giving women brains.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 15, 2004 3:14 PMEberstadt was, together with his colleauge Murray Feshbach, the first to see the implosion of the Soviet Union.
Putin is in an interestin and tough position. He has way more assets (65. M mi**2) than his population base can use. The indicated solution is to sell. The Jappanese will buy Shakalin Island, and probably overpay. The Chinese will buy Siberia east of Lake Bakail and underpay, but they will simply take if they don't buy it. He also needs to move all non-resourse related devlopment back to the west of the urals to concentrate his population and infra-structure spending where hthey have a chance of survivng against the chinese and the muslims.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 15, 2004 3:16 PMJeff:
He gave men brains and they liberated women as a function of their faith.
Posted by: oj at February 15, 2004 3:18 PMActually, the demographic decline of Russia was noted by Robert and Virginia Heinlein during a trip to the USSR in the mid-1960s. In Moscow they took note of things like barge traffic, and politely asked people they met about the size of their families, etc. He calculated Moscow didn't have anything near the population the authorities claimed. I believe the piece is in one of his collections, "Expanded Universe."
Posted by: PapayaSF at February 15, 2004 3:35 PMJeff:
"Nature's reproductive tyranny"? Wow. And you wonder why some of us sometimes think secularists hate life. Do you always see nature in such anthropomorphic terms?
Posted by: Peter B at February 15, 2004 6:12 PMPeter:
Gee, it is only a figure of speech.
Nature put women in a physically subordinate position, from which they were destined to bear as many children as time and exhaustion would allow.
What other term would you use for a state of affairs where you are compelled to do something regardless of your preferences? "Tyranny" seems a pretty good choice of words to me. What would you use instead?
For better or ill, the Pill lifted that tyranny.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 15, 2004 9:20 PMWhat faith was that, Orrin? Surely you do not mean Christianity, which was always against giving women legal status?
Somehow Russia threw off Communism because it is fundamentally Orthodox but is breeding itself down to nothing because it is secular.
Makes no sense to me.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 15, 2004 9:38 PMRussia threw off communism because it doesn't work. External stress exacerbated the cracks and time did the rest. Orthodoxy probably had little to do with it, other than to literally encourage people who had been terrorized for 70 years. Of course, Yeltsin's particular brand of oligarchy didn't do very well, either. We shall see with Putin.
It is doubtful that any leader can overcome the trends in Russia (the dwindling lifespan is another - the average man in Russia now lives to be about 57 and change).
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 15, 2004 10:04 PMOJ:
Yeah, but the Chinese still have 1.2 billion people. If they doubled their territory and their population were cut in half they would be at current US of density.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 15, 2004 10:59 PMRobert S:
But their population is moving inward, not outward.
Posted by: oj at February 15, 2004 11:05 PMHarry:
Man can't be made in the image of God and keep women permanently in bondage, not blacks, etc.
When did Russia throw off communism? It just kind of burned down, but there's not much left worth saving.
Posted by: oj at February 15, 2004 11:12 PMLike allegedly self-evident truths that were not noticed by anybody for thousands of years, the idea that men made in the image of god cannot keep women, races in subjection permanently is more hope than fact.
If men made in the image of god can keep, say, blacks in subjection for longer than 115 years (taken as the longest lifespan), that's effectively permanent.
If you're born a slave and die a slave, that's all that counts.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 18, 2004 1:54 PMHarry:
But you believe only in yourself, so a lifetime is the measure of all things.
Posted by: oj at February 18, 2004 2:02 PM