| Home |
|
|
|
|
Graying of the population |
In the meantime, modern medicine is allowing people to live even longer - causing quite a dilemna: will humankind reach a point where having children is to be discouraged, even to the point of one child or no children families? What will the world be like with fewer and fewer children and more and more elderly people?
Some people do not realize that the earth's resources are finite. Or they believe that God or technology will take care of it. They propose a giant pyramid scheme to continue to produce young people who would take care of the old people - leaving the question of who is going to take care of the young people when they get old?
Many think that families should be large so that the children can take care of the parents in their old age. They who think so overlook the fact that people with fewer children are better off economically and are usually more able to save and invest for their retirement than if they had spent their money on raising more children.
| Country | TFR* |
| Spain | 1.15 |
| Latvia | 1.16 |
| Czech Republic | 1.18 |
| Bulgaria | 1.24 |
| Italy | 1.24 |
| *TFR=The total fertility rate: the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime if the birth rate of a particular year remained constant. | |
Europe's population is expected to decrease from 728 million now to 658 million by 2050, due to declining birth rates. June 8, 2000 ENN/AP
February 15, 2000 CNA Mainland China Facing Aging Population Problem. Due to its one-child policy, China's number of elderly people may triple from 130 million to 400 million over the next five years, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Currently one young person in mainland China supports an average of four elderly people.February 15, 2000 CNA
About 1780, about the time of Malthus' dire predicitons, families in Europe began cutting back the number of children they had, raising fewer children not because of disease or famine but because they chose to - perhaps because more children were more expensive to raise, and when city life and education became a factor, fewer children meant a better life for the family. But, like braking a speeding train, slowing population growth doesn't happen all at once. June 21, 2000 Christian Science Monitor
|
The following is, (shown in reverse order),
by Sheila Newman May 26 2000 The European economy has been adapting to population decline then stabilisation since the oil crash in 1974 when immigration from outside the European Union was drastically reined in. The European social welfare system is geared to redistributing wealth and is not comparable to the US social welfare system. There are a number of strategies currently being debated and phased in in Europe and none of them depend on large scale immigration or on pronatalism. Europe's population greatly increased after the second world war. It is a nonsense to suppose that it must go on increasing or even should maintain itself. Western Europe does not have access to the oil and other mineral wealth of the United States, Canada and Australia and it has massive soil, water and air pollution problems. Western European countries also have better functioning democracies than the US and are more able to deal with the pension problem. The UN and Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute are assessing the situation from a US perspective. The US perspective of panic and massive immigration in the face of a poorly designed social security system is the result of the inability of the political system to deal with the problem by any sensible means. Europe and the rest of the first world are rich beyond the riches of any previous civilisations. To say that the US or any of these nations is incapable of sharing to take care of their elderly is a grotesque nonsense based on mind blowing greed and reflects poorly on the organisations issuing this propaganda. If even the Pope can't influence the Italians to boost their birthrate then what is the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute doing? Teaching the Pope to suck eggs? This May 4, 2000 Volume 3, Number 24 bulletin misrepresents the situation, portraying it as panicked and desperate. No wonder so many people distrust information disseminated by religious ideologically based organisations. Sheila Newman is post graduate environmental sociology researcher specialising in comparing France and Australia's population policies and population outcomes Swinburn University of Science and Technology, Victoria, Australia. She can be reached by email at smnaesp@alphalink.com.au
May 14 2000
Dear Colleague: Spread the word.
Yours sincerely,
Action Item: More than likely your child is being taught that the world is overpopulated. Send this Friday Fax to the head of your child's school. And share this report with at least one friend. The joys of population control are believed by the most unlikely people. Teach them the truth.
May 4, 2000 Volume 3, Number 24
* The president of the European Commission recently warned governments that by 2025 nearly one-third of the European population will be collecting pensions. Italian Romano Prodi also warned that nearly all pensions will be covered at government expense, paid by European tax payers. Prodi's warning is another in an increasing line of dire predictions relating to the results of population control. * After decades of over-population scares and government supported programs for "zero population growth," most European countries are no longer replacing themselves. The average woman in an advanced industrial society must have 2.1 children in her lifetime in order for the country's population to remain stable. The United Nations reports that 61 countries, and all of Europe, are experiencing "below replacement fertility." Experts expect this number to grow to as many as 80 countries in the coming year. * Experts predict that Italy's population will shrink 28 percent to 41 million by 2050. It is also predicted that the European Union as a whole will shrink to 18 million people fewer than the United States which continues to grow. At this time the European population is larger than the US. * Population problems are not just vexing western Europe. The former Communist countries in the east are having even greater problems. In a report just released by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, it is predicted that population levels are expected to drop by a third in former communist countries by 2050. The report states that the countries of eastern Europe have the lowest fertility rates in the world. The latest figures, from 1998, reveal that women are having on average 1.3 children in eastern Europe, compared to 1.6 in western Europe. * The immediate result of "below replacement fertility" is population aging. As the older population grows to retirement age, they must rely on rapidly expanding social security and medical systems. The bind doubles as this growing need cannot be met by a shrinking number of younger and more productive workers. * The problem in Europe is exacerbated even further by very young retirement ages. Italy allows workers to retire as young as 50 years old. Although the legal retirement age in most of Europe is 65, the financial penalty for early retirement is so small many opt for it anyway. According to a report in the International Herald Tribune the average age of retirement for men is 61 and 58 for women. * A recent UN report made the case for dramatically increased immigration to cover the shortfall of workers. This seems politically unfeasible since the relatively small numbers of immigrant workers in Europe are causing severe political difficulties and have given rise to political parties aggressively opposed to immigration. * Pro-lifers are concerned that the European scenario of rapidly aging populations increasing the strain on social services will lead inevitably to increased reliance on euthanasia. Euthanasia is already practiced in the Netherlands.
Copyright - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). (above supplied by R. Wendell) |
Japan: Incentives Offered To Reverse Falling Birthrate. The average birthrate for a Japanese woman was just 1.38 in 1998, Japan's record low and among the lowest in the world. The Bandai Corporation, a toy company, has begun offering its employees $10,000 for every baby born after their second child. The government and employers are attempting to reverse record-low birthrates, but most Japanese feel that it's just too difficult and expensive to have more than two children. Previous initiatives for encouraging births have included making it more economical to raise children -- extending flexible work hours, family leave and child care and offering cash and monthly subsidies. Japanese government officials deny, however, that such offers are directly intended to promote childbirth. In a related article, Japan Headed For World's Highest Percentage Of Elderly, Japan is concerned that declining birthrates and an aging population will curb economic growth, as there will be fewer workers to support the elderly. Government officials said that by 2005, the percentage is expected to reach 19.6%, the highest in the world, surpassing Sweden, currently at 17%. $99 billion has been set aside for solutions to the aging problem. The median age is expected to raise from 41 to 49. Life expectancy for women, at just over 84 years, is the world's highest. May 30, 2000 NY Times/ABC News
In Japan, Golden Years Have Lost Their Glow. Formerly, most Japanese men expected to retire and then go into a low-stress, largely ceremonial second job to supplement their pension. But, the nation's 10-year economic malaise, coupled with long-standing demographic trends, has changed the anticipated trajectory of their lives. Public and private pension systems are teetering toward insolvency, a result of poor management and a very low birth rate, which has meant fewer young workers paying into a pension system that must support their elders. The birth rate in 1998, the latest year that figures are available, stood at a record low. The older population is growing with the life span -- the average Japanese man can expect to live 77 years, the average woman, 84 -- so it has a greater need for medical care, assisted housing and other support services, as well as larger nest eggs to help pay for them. Japan is graying faster than any other industrialized country. This year, people 65 and older are expected to account for 17.2 percent of Japan's population of 126.9 million. By 2020, they will account for 26.9 percent of a population that will have shrunk to 124 million. By contrast, this year Americans 65 and older should account for a little under 12.7 percent of a population of 275 million. By 2020, they will account for 16 to 17 percent of a population that will have risen to 325 million. And while tradition hands the oldest child the responsibility of caring for parents, it is breaking down as more young people live in cities, with severe space constraints. More women are working, too, and cannot care for ailing parents. At the same time, companies that once would have found work for retirement-age employees at affiliates or within their own rank and file, are rushing to jettison these older, more expensive workers and reduce labor costs. Many more people are thus being thrown into retirement at age 60 -- the youngest retirement age permitted by the government -- than the number of second jobs available. February 16, 2000 NY Times
Can a graying Europe still support itself?: New warnings are on the way over how the Continent will manage with strikingly low birth rates. Joseph Chamie, director of the UN Population Division, reported estimates that already 10% of global population is aged 60 or more and that this share will mount to 22%, or about 2 billion people, by 2050, with declines in both fertility and mortality accounting for the increase. The pattern of fewer and fewer children, one that recurs all over Europe, carries within it the seeds of an alarming crisis, and possibly of a dreadful failure for the Continent, demographers warn. Europe's population is about to start shrinking, and aging, dramatically. Joseph Grinblat, a demographer with the United Nations Population Division says "There are only three things you can do: increase the retirement age, increase social security contributions, or reduce pensions. Those are all painful, so it is very hard for politicians to act unless there is an urgent need." As fewer workers support ever more retirees, government budgets will be threatened, industrial output will fall, and the very nature of European society will be at stake. By the middle of the 21st century, the study predicts, Italy's population will have dropped from today's 57 million to 41 million. Its labor force will have been halved, while the number of pensioners will have nearly doubled. Other European nations will be in roughly similar situations: Today there are about five people of working age for every retiree - by 2050 there will be only two. The only way to maintain the current ratio, says a UN report, would be to let 159 million immigrants into Europe - 40% of the current population over the next 25 years. Nowhere in Europe does a government encourage immigration. Most, on the contrary, strictly limit foreigners, fearing the social tensions - and political extremism - that poorly integrated immigrant communities can generate. Some demographers propose a fourth option - boosting the birth rate with government policies designed to encourage larger families. by Peter Ford ..The Christian Science Monitor January 21, 2000
50 Years From Now, It'll Be a Grey India.
By 2051, only 19% of the country's population would be up to the age of 14 years. Currently this group constitutes almost 38% of the population. The median age will rise by 17 years from 21 years now to 38 years in 2051.
Couples are opting for one child, or at the most two - and with advancement in health services, will experience an increased life expectancy. According to the Population Foundation of India, a voluntary organisation working in association with the Union government, about 15% of the population will be over the age of 65 by 2051. By then, India will have an evened out sex ratio, which was 108 males per 100 females in 1991. The total fertility rate - number of children per woman) in India would is expected to come down to 2.52 between 2011 and 2016, and is expected to reach 2.1 in 2026. July 3, 2000 Times Of India
Europe registers the world's lowest growth rate at 0.03 percent. In the
region of Eastern Europe, population growth is -0.2 percent. UN
Report Nov 98
This subject has it's own page. Click here Declining Birth Rates?? From GLOBAL POPULATION MEDIA ANALYSIS By Communications Consortium Media Center Nov 98 On November 11, the Chicago Tribune ran a story on its front page about the "Graying of Italy"-declining birth rates resulting from delayed marriage and desire for smaller families in that country. The article highlighted a small town in the Italian Alps where funerals outnumber baptisms in the local church. "As a result of four consecutive years of declining birth rates, Italy is the only country in Europe in which people over age 65 outnumber those under age 15." The article did note that factories in Northern Italy did attract a modest influx of immigrants. Furthermore, the regional and national government have begun devising economic incentives for families to have more children, such as insurance that pays off when a baby is born, or child subsidies for low- and middle-income families.
On November 15, The Toronto Sun reported that "natural-born Canadians are becoming an endangered species," with the Canadian fertility rate at an all-time low. The article predicted that "annual deaths could equal or surpass births as early as 2020." Reasons for this decline were listed as baby boomers moving past their childbearing years, as well as decisions by working women to postpone childbearing.
A November 15 Op-Ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, by George J. Bryjak, professor of sociology at the University of San Diego, warned that fears of a population "implosion" were a misinterpretation of demographic data. "At worst, it is flat out wrong." Citing Alene Gelbard and Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau, Bryjak pointed out that there were two different worlds of population growth: the "two-children-or-fewer-world," including industrialized countries, and the "rapid-growth-world," consisting of Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa. He explained the importance of youth in determining future population growth rates. "While women in England and South Korea both have the same fertility rate, the population in the former is expected to decrease over the next 27 years while it increases in the latter. The solution to this demographic riddle is that the population of South Korea is much younger than that of England, resulting in more women in that Asian nation giving birth." With population continuing to grow steadily in Africa and India-which, in combination with China, now makes up 50 percent of the world's people-Bryjak predicted that the global count of humanity would also continue to grow, in spite of the number of nations with zero or negative population growth.
We need to go, for some time period, below the replacement level of two offspring per female. (I'm suspicious that the +/- 1.3 in Italy, etc. may be a bit too low for a smooth transition). We need to drop world human population down to (ideally) some Ecocentrically defined "Optimum" size. This is not the same as "stabilization" at current levels, nor is it the same as the "sustainable" population which some population activists seem to think should be our goal. "Officially", I've been for many years putting out the argument that the Optimal human population should be about 10 million. In all seriousness, I think that would be a great target. (As one of Dr Fred Hoyle's characters says in October the First is Too Late, "How many of them are you ever going to get to know anyway?") But even much larger numbers (100 million?, 200 million?) might potentially still be defended as Ecocentrically defined "Optimal" world human populations. Achieving "stabilization" without first reducing our numbers drastically probably won't even work. We're probably already somewhat over even an Anthropocentrically defined Carrying Capacity... and well over an Anthropocentrically defined Optimum. Maybe 1.7 fertility rate for 150 years or more.. before we level off at below 200 million? ... Dennis Phillips - Oregon Optimal Population Society (OOPS!)
The Case For Dramatically Reducing Human Numbers
There are finite limits to global human numbers; that these limits may already have been reached (or soon will be); and that a halt to growth is desirable and/or inevitable.
In November 1991, Jacques-Yves Cousteau reportedly said, in response to an interviewer's question, "Some snakes, mosquitoes, and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like viruses that cause certain diseases?," Cousteau said:] "Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths. I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million. What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It's a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable." Bahgat Elnadi and Adel Rifaat, "Interview With Jacques-Yves Cousteau," The UNESCO Courier, November 1991, p. 13
Supposedly from the UNESCO Courier of November 1991, another version of the same thing is reported by this website:
Jacques Cousteau said, "to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say," he admitted, "but it’s just as bad not to say it." This Hitlerian sentiment, published in UNESCO Courier in November 1991, is not rare among envirochondriacs.The above is reportedly from the "The Population Controllers," of the New American Magazine, 6/27/94, p. 7. However, when you go to that issue on the on-line version of New American Magazine, this rather alleged statement of Cousteau's was not to be found - a rather glaring omission for such an important statement.
Also from the possibly the same source: "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible." The Global Assessment Report of UNEP, Phase One Draft, Section 9