Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The greatest threat facing mankind is...
Faith, Reason and Health Blog ^ | 01/22/12 | Various

Posted on 01/22/2012 4:54:42 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The greatest threat facing mankind is...

The greatest threat facing mankind is NOT anthropogenic "climate change."

Nor is it anthropogenic environmental damage.

It most certainly is not "overpopulation." Neither is it "peak oil." Nor is it food shortages.

The greatest threat facing mankind is, however, "anthropogenic."


Because the greatest threat facing mankind is the general failure of mankind to reproduce:



Fewer tells a monumental human story, largely ignored, but which promises to starkly change the human condition in the years to come. Never before have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places, so surprisingly. In Fewer, Ben Wattenberg shows how and why this has occurred, and explains what it means for the future. The demographic plunge, he notes, is starkly apparent in the developed nations of Europe and Japan, which will lose about 150 million people in the next half century. Starting from higher levels, but moving with geometric speed, the demographic decline is also apparent in the less developed nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Only the United States (so far) has been exempt from the birth dearth, leaving America as more than "the sole super-power." Perhaps it should be called the global "omni-power." These stark demographic changes will affect commerce, the environment, public financing, and geo-politics. Here Wattenberg lists likely winners and losers. In Wattenberg's world of "The New Demography" readers get a look at a topic often chattered about, but rarely understood.


You’ve heard about the Death of the West. But the Muslim world is on the brink of an even greater collapse. WILL WE GO DOWN IN THE IMPLOSION? Thanks to collapsing birthrates, much of Europe is on a path of willed self-extinction. The untold story is that birthrates in Muslim nations are declining faster than anywhere else—at a rate never before documented. Europe, even in its decline, may have the resources to support an aging population, if at a terrible economic and cultural cost. But in the impoverished Islamic world, an aging population means a civilization on the brink of total collapse— something Islamic terrorists know and fear. Muslim decline poses new threats to America, challenges we cannot even understand, much less face effectively, without a wholly new kind of political analysis that explains how desperate peoples and nations behave. In How Civilizations Die, David P. Goldman—author of the celebrated “Spengler” column read by intelligence organizations worldwide—reveals how, almost unnoticed, massive shifts in global power are remaking our future.


Remarkably, most conventional wisdom about the shifting balance of world power virtually ignores one of the most fundamental components of power: population. The studies that do consider international security and demographic trends almost unanimously focus on population growth as a liability. In contrast, the distinguished contributors to this volume—security experts from the Naval War College, the American Enterprise Institute, and other think tanks—contend that demographic decline in key world powers now poses a profound challenge to global stability. The countries at greatest risk are in the developed world, where birthrates are falling and populations are aging. Many have already lost significant human capital, capital that would have helped them innovate and fuel their economy, man their armed forces, and secure a place at the table of world power. By examining the effects of diverging population trends between the United States and Europe and the effects of rapid population aging in Japan, India, and China, this book uncovers increasing tensions within the transatlantic alliance and destabilizing trends in Asian security. Thus, it argues, relative demographic decline may well make the world less, and not more, secure.


Overpopulation has long been a global concern. But between modern medicine and reduced fertility, world population may in fact be shrinking--and is almost certain to do so by the time today's children retire. The troubling implications for our economy and culture include:* The possibility of a fundamentalist revival due to the decline of secular fertility* The threat to the free market as the supply of workers and consumers declines* The eventual collapse of the American health care system as inordinate expenses are incurred by an aging populationPhillip Longman's uncompromisingly sensible solutions fly in the face of traditional ideas. State intervention is necessary, he argues, to combat the effects of an aging population. We must provide incentives for young families, and we cannot close our eyes and hope for the best as an entire generation approaches retirement age.The Empty Cradle changes the terms of one of the most important environmental, economic, and social debates of our day.


The world's population is still growing, thanks to rising longevity. But fertility rates - the average number of children born per woman - are falling nearly everywhere. More and more adults are deciding to have fewer and fewer children. Worldwide, reports the UN, there are 6 million fewer babies and young children today than there were in 1990. By 2015, according to one calculation, there will be 83 million fewer. By 2025, 127 million fewer. By 2050, the world's supply of the youngest children may have plunged by a quarter of a billion, and will amount to less than 5 percent of the human family. The reasons for this birth dearth are many. Among them: As the number of women in the workforce has soared, many have delayed marriage and childbearing, or decided against them altogether. The Sexual Revolution, by making sex readily available without marriage, removed what for many men had been a powerful motive to marry. Skyrocketing rates of divorce have made women less likely to have as many children as in generations past. Years of indoctrination about the perils of "overpopulation" have led many couples to embrace childlessness as a virtue. Result: a dramatic and inexorable aging of society. In the years ahead, the ranks of the elderly are going to swell to unprecedented levels, while the number of young people continues to dwindle. The working-age population will shrink, first in relation to the population of retirees, then in absolute terms. A world without children will be a poorer world - grayer, lonelier, less creative, less confident. Children are a great blessing, but it may take their disappearance for the world to remember why.



Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family (DVD/ Documentary) by Rick Stout

Product Overview One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree - we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.

Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world - demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:


The “population bomb” not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations, and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.

The economies of the world will continue to contract as the “human capital” spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.

Government programs will slow-bleed by the decrease in tax dollars received from an ever shrinking work force. The skyrocketing ratio of the old retirees to the young workers will render current-day social security systems completely unable to support the aging population.

Our attempts to modernize through social engineering policies and programs have left children growing up in broken homes, with absentee parents and little exposure to extended family, disconnected from the generations, and these children are experiencing severe psychological, sociological and economic consequences. The intact family’s immeasurable role in the development and prosperity of human societies is crumbling.

The influence of social and economic problems on ever shrinking, increasingly disconnected generations will compound and accelerate the deterioration. Our children and our children’s children will bear the economic and social burden of regenerating the “human capital” that accounts for 80% of wealth in the economy, and they will be ill-equipped to do so.

Is there a “tipping point”, after which the accelerating consequences will make recovery impossible without complete social and economic collapse? Even the experts can’t tell us how far we can go down this road, oblivious to the outcomes, until we reach a point where sliding into the void becomes unpreventable.


Only if the political incorrectness of talking about the natural family within policy circles is overcome will solutions begin to be found. These solutions will necessarily result in policy changes, changes that will support and promote the natural, intact family.

Just as it took the cumulative involvement of activist organizations, policy makers, the business world and the media to create the unintended consequences we are beginning to experience, so it will take the holistic contribution of all of these entities, together with civic and religious organizations, to change the hearts and minds of all of society to bring about a reversal.

It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.



Demography is destiny. But not always in the way we imagine, begins Pearce (When the Rivers Run Dry) in his fascinating analysis of how global population trends have shaped, and been shaped by, political and cultural shifts. He starts with Robert Malthus, whose concept of overpopulation—explicitly of the uneducated and poor classes—and depleted resources influenced two centuries of population and environmental theory, from early eugenicists (including Margaret Sanger) to the British colonial administrators presiding over India and Ireland. Pearce examines the roots of the incipient crash in global population in decades of mass sterilizations and such government interventions as Mao's one child program. Many nations are breeding at less then replacement numbers (including not only the well-publicized crises in Western Europe and Japan, but also Iran, Australia, South Africa, and possibly soon China and India). Highly readable and marked by first-class reportage, Pearce's book also highlights those at the helm of these vastly influential decisions—the families themselves, from working-class English families of the industrial revolution to the young women currently working in the factories of Bangladesh.


What is the impact of demographics on the prospective production of military power and the causes of war? This monograph analyzes this issue by projecting working-age populations through 2050; assessing the influence of demographics on manpower, national income and expenditures, and human capital; and examining how changes in these factors may affect the ability of states to carry out military missions. It also looks at some implications of these changes for other aspects of international security. The authors find that the United States, alone of all the large affluent nations, will continue to see (modest) increases in its working-age population thanks to replacement-level fertility rates and a likely return to vigorous levels of immigration. Meanwhile, the working-age populations of Europe and Japan are slated to fall by as much as 10 to 15 percent by 2030 and as much as 30 to 40 percent by 2050. The United States will thus account for a larger percentage of the population of its Atlantic and Pacific alliances; in other words, the capacity of traditional alliances to multiply U.S. demographic power is likely to decline, perhaps sharply, through 2050. India's working-age population is likely to overtake China's by 2030. The United States, which has 4.7 percent of the world's working-age population, will still have 4.3 percent by 2050, and the current share of global gross domestic product accounted for by the U.S. economy is likely to stay quite high.

And the primary means by which mankind has stopped reproducing are abortifacient hormonal contraceptives and abortion itself.

Martin Luther called the "Sin of Onan" marital sodomy. In the Judeo-Christian and Natural Law tradition, any sex act made deliberately infecund is no better than sodomy.


So in considering the greatest threats facing mankind, one must also consider this:

In Depth Analysis

Crying to Heaven for Vengeance


RSS Facebook

by Dr. Jeff Mirus, September 7, 2004

From Our Store: Misinterpreting Catholicism (eBook)

The Bible mentions only four sins which cry out to God for vengeance. Considering the source and the emphasis, we have little choice but to examine our consciences on these points. A cursory examination will not do; we must cast off our cultural preconceptions to see beyond the obvious.

Homicide
And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” (Gn 4:10) It is hardly suprising that Cain’s murder of Abel provides the first instance of one of these sins that cries out for Divine vengeance. While all sins disrupt the natural order in some way, those enumerated as crying out to God appear to be chosen because they strike at nature’s root.


It is easy to see how murder fits into this category. The unjust termination of the life of another is a profound violation of “how things should be” precisely because our very nature compels us to regard our own lives as precious. To take a person's life is to terminate in another what we instinctively regard as our own highest good.


Sadly, the ease with which we understand the foulness of murder may be conditioned more by our culture than by Divine Revelation. We must take care that we do not find it abhorrent only insofar as we are creatures of society, rather than creatures of God.

Abortion is a case in point.
Sodomy


Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21) The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of homosexual activity. So far gone were they in this vice that the men of the town would not even accept heterosexual license with Lot’s daughters, both virgins, as a means of sating their lust (see 19:8-9).


Here we have another case in point for cultural conditioning. It is far more difficult for our contraceptive culture to see how contrary to nature homosexuality is. Those of us who instinctively feel its deep unnaturalness rightly react to homosexual activity with disgust, but logical arguments are unlikely to produce the same reaction in those whose instincts are damaged, blunted or rationalized away.

It is precisely in such situations that Divine Revelation is so very useful, for we cannot trust our feelings when they run counter to reality. We require a better guide. Sodomy strikes at the root of human nature because of its perversion of the procreative impulse, without which the race must die. But in case we don’t see it, God does.

Oppression of Widows and Orphans

“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.” (Ex 21-23) There is a deep truth in this passage about the relationships of husbands to wives, and of parents to children, and about how vulnerable wives and children become when their natural protection is removed.


Very probably all of us can see that it would be gravely sinful to take advantage of the weakness and vulnerability of either a widow or an orphan, and we can readily imagine the financial burdens and solicitation of “favors” with which either can be afflicted. It is much easier in every way to abuse a boy or girl who has no father and to intimidate a woman who has no husband.

Once again, however, we must remove our social blinders to see the great evil in our culture which turns so many into widows and orphans in the first place. The grave sin of divorce, by which natural protection is ripped away from women and children, surely tops the list of horrors under this heading.

Cheating Laborers of Their Due


“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.” (Dt 24:14-15) Here we come to a principle of sound social order: those in positions of authority and wealth have serious obligations to those who depend on their decisions for their well-being. Fortunately, we live in a very wealthy society.

But does our very wealth cause this sin to appear irrelevant? Free enterprise is an excellent system, but too often it carries the completely unnecessary baggage of a callous attitude toward employees, regarding them as commodities. The social teachings of the Church have attempted to address this concern (without pointing at all toward socialism) for over a century.

Yet the latest trend, at least in the United States, is constant mergers and buyouts which throw hundreds of thousands out of work while enriching an elite few. Even temporary unemployment is both a bank-breaker and a heart-breaker. Working under an abusive or negligent boss can be a living nightmare. And most of us are well-shielded from adults who must work for a minimal wage. The Israelites were urged to remember their days in Egypt, and treat others accordingly.

Together and In Order

All of these sins cry out to God, but the four are not equal. The sequence in the text suggests a hierarchy of value, and it is a tightly linked hierarchy. One sin leads to another, from the gravest to the least, as we make objects out of persons and treat them accordingly, subverting all our natural relationships. For this reason, we cannot assuage our consciences by attending to the fourth sin while ignoring the first, or by claiming virtue on the third and closing our eyes to the second. If these sins cry out to God for vengeance and we still commit them or do nothing to restrict them in others, we mock God to His face. Of course, when we’re wearing our usual cultural blinders, it often appears to us that we can mock God with impunity. But isn’t this something else we know from Revelation—in case we cannot see it for ourselves?

The Obama administration would do well to recall these foundational principles before trying to force the only Church in the world still fighting for the future of humanity, and against this greatest threat to it, to cave in and pay for contraception and abortifacients:


Obama administration is taking a wrong-headed line with the church

Forcing contraception insurance coverage goes too far

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, January 22 2012, 4:10 AM

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has lambasted the Obama administration for putting health care policy ahead of deeply held moral teachings.

Louis Lanzano/AP

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has lambasted the Obama administration for putting health policy ahead of moral teachings.

Excerpt:


President Obama’s health chief decreed Friday that the Catholic Church must provide its employees with health insurance coverage for contraception, its moral stance against birth control be damned.

Wrong, wrong, high-handedly, obtusely wrong.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took Obamacare’s philosophy of equal insurance for all to a level of zealotry that reduced a deeply held matter of conscience to a bothersome trifle.

Presumably, the President was fully briefed on a decision of this magnitude. If so, he made a fundamental error that will only add to a sense among many faith-based communities that the White House has a thing against religion.

It was less than two weeks ago that the Supreme Court unanimously and thunderingly scolded the administration for trying to tell churches and church-based organization that the government knew best as to who they could hire and fire.

Because of the church’s size and reach, Sebelius’ ruling will apply most broadly to Catholic organizations, but they apply to affiliates of other religions that bar contraception and sterilization.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Education; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: carryingcapacity; genocide; moralabsolutes; overpopulation; populationbomb; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 next last
To: Dr. Brian Kopp

A simply outstanding thread.


141 posted on 01/24/2012 1:52:35 PM PST by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Fertility rate has been seen to go from 7 children per women to 3 to 2 in just a few generations - it can go back just as easily. It doesn't take generations to change birth rates - just a change in the situation that makes having babies more desirable and BLAMO the birth rate increases almost immediately - or at least within 9 months. ;)
142 posted on 01/24/2012 1:55:44 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I agree with you that not all public school teachers or students or evil.

Although it’s not ideal, we have a government schooling system.

In life, you have to play with the hand you are dealt.


143 posted on 01/24/2012 2:22:34 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes; Dr. Brian Kopp
A simply outstanding thread.

I agree.

Although someone here who thinks insults are preferable to facts and logic is getting pretty annoying.

144 posted on 01/24/2012 2:36:12 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7
Actually, compared to a civilian cruise ship, a Nimitz-class CVN is quite manuverable.

OK then, substitute a civilian cruise ship or an oil tanker for my last post ;-)

145 posted on 01/24/2012 2:37:27 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The high birth rate is symptomatic of their poverty, culture and corruption.

On the contrary, their high birth rate was the universal norm worldwide prior to the industrial revolution, and some third world countries have taken longer than others for urbanization/modernization to diminish their prior norms to western standards.

Attributing their higher birth rates the way you do here is laughable.

146 posted on 01/24/2012 2:47:38 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp
High birth rates are the demographic model of economic basket case nations.

Lower than replacement rates are the demographic model of moribund socialist economies.

And reasonable birth rates are the demographic model of healthy Republics like our own.

Unless you can show any causation, what you keep on repeating is irrelevant.

The total fertility rates for white women in America from 1800-1860 were this:

1800--7.04

1810--6.94

1820--6.73

1830--6.55

1840--6.14

1850--5.42

1860--5.21

I'd like to think that America from 1800 to 1860 was a "healthy Republic," not an "economic basketcase."

link

147 posted on 01/24/2012 2:51:57 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes; WPaCon
A simply outstanding thread.

I agree.

Thank you.

This is a subject very few folks are prepared to address, but its one we all need to understand, as it is already affecting us now (notice how the insolvency of Social Security keeps getting moved up closer and closer?) and will be the biggest unsolvable problem for the next several generations.

Countries that have below replacement fertility rates can't even bring them up at present with major financial incentives (i.e., bribes).

148 posted on 01/24/2012 2:56:41 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Fertility rate has been seen to go from 7 children per women to 3 to 2 in just a few generations - it can go back just as easily.

LOL! Tell that to Russia.

Industrial Nations Increase Incentives For Babies

Pyramid scheme slows -- top investors fret

Where birth rates have improved, governments and their owners are worried about economic consequences. The solution, they figure, is to encourage breeding among the masses. Studies show that economic incentives don't work over the long term, but those are easily overlooked.

A partial list of countries' baby bounties:

AUSTRALIA
Birth rate up after baby bonus
September 16, 2006
The birthrate is accelerating since the maternity payment became available, new figures show.
Centrelink data obtained by The Australian shows 268,667 parents claimed the payment from the federal government for their newborns in 2005-06.
While yet to be confirmed in official birth statistics, this number represents an increase of more than 10,000 births or 14 per cent on the previous year, and more than 16,000 on 2003-04.
Demographers suggest the maternity payment - worth $3000 when introduced in July 2004 but increased to $4000 this July - combined with low interest rates and low unemployment, may be driving the baby boom.
Australia's fertility rate, which reached 1.8 babies per woman last year, is up from 1.72 in 2003 and is well above rates of 1.2 to 1.4 babies in many other developed nations.
The Centrelink data shows 235,299 claims for the bonus - comprising 194,342 couples and 40,957 single parents - in 2004-05.
The number of claims jumped by 33,368 in 2005-06 to 268,667, perhaps reflecting the fact some parents failed to claim the bonus in its first year.
The figures dispel suggestions the lucrative payment has encouraged teenagers to have children, with only 186 extra claims by teenagers between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Overall, 4,800 teenagers claimed the bonus in 2005-06.
However, older women are increasingly giving birth.
The number of claims by parents over the age of 40 increased from 9906 to 15,873.
Similarly, the number of claims by parents aged 35-39 increased from 44,783 in 2004-05 to 55,350 in 2005-06.
© 2006 AAP

ESTONIA and others
In Estonia, paying women to have babies pays off
Friday, October 20, 2006
By Marcus Walker, The Wall Street Journal
TALLINN, Estonia -- Pia Kurro sat cross-legged on her bed in a drab, Soviet-era maternity ward that smelled of detergent and old linoleum and breast-fed her two-day-old daughter, Syria, who owes her existence to state subsidies.
In return for having the child, Ms. Kurro will receive the equivalent of $1,560 a month from her government for over a year, a lot of money in a country where the average monthly salary is $650.
"I would not have had a baby without the support," said the 39-year-old business consultant.
Ms. Kurro embodies an increasingly urgent question: Can government policies aimed at raising a nation's birthrate actually work? The answer is vital to the future of the global economy. Like most developed countries around the world, Estonia has a critical shortfall of children that, if not reversed, will lead to a sharply aging and shrinking population. That will undermine economic growth and public finances as a dwindling work force struggles to support a growing pool of retirees who are living longer.
A handful of developed countries, including the Nordic nations and France, have stable populations thanks to a long tradition of financial support for families. But for other countries in Europe and Asia that have already seen steep falls in birthrates, demographers have doubted there was much that could be done. Governments agreed, making little serious attempt to boost their birthrates. Estonia stands out because it has made a dramatic shift, from laissez-faire to aggressive activism, in an attempt to alter its future. And as other nations slowly start to address the risk of declining birthrates, the effort there is being closely watched around the world.
Estonia's wake-up call came in 2001, when the United Nations' annual world-population report showed that Estonia was one of the fastest-shrinking nations on earth, at risk of losing nearly half its 1.4 million people by mid-century. Estonia's fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman bears -- had collapsed to 1.3 in the late 1990s, down from 2.2 under communism only a decade earlier.
In an attempt to stop that downward spiral, Estonia took a bold step: In 2004 it began paying women to have babies. Working women who take time off after giving birth get their entire monthly income for up to 15 months, up to a ceiling of $1,560. Non-wage-earners get $200 a month. The welfare perk -- known locally as the "mother's salary" -- was a sharp about-face for the radically free-market government.
"Step by step, (the declining birthrate) became a danger to the survival of the nation, so we had to do something," says Paul-Eerik Rummo, minister for population affairs and a member of the Reform Party in Estonia's ruling coalition.
Now, two years into the program, the government is seeing some of the first tentative results. Since the adoption of the new benefits, Estonia's fertility rate has improved to 1.5. That's still below the 2.1 children needed to stop the population from shrinking (one child to replace each parent, plus some room to allow for child mortality). And it will take years to see the full impact of the mother's salary. But the apparent early success has inspired the government to look at other ways of getting people to have more children -- everything from subsidies for nannies to linking pension payments to the number of children one has.
Many countries once loath to meddle in matters of fertility are looking at their numbers and concluding that they must take similar steps. "Governments may not achieve their aim, but the competing risk of doing nothing is too great for many countries -- their future young labor supplies are going to be decimated," says Peter McDonald, professor of demography at the Australian National University in Canberra.
The fertility rate in the 30 countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the club of the world's leading industrialized democracies, was only 1.6 in 2005, down from 2.4 in 1970. Mexico, at 2.4, is the highest, with South Korea the lowest at 1.1. Demographers say the decline is due to fundamental changes in society. They include: greater economic opportunities for women; advances in birth control that have made reproduction a matter of choice rather than accident; and the spread of ideas about individual freedom and happiness that are hard to reconcile with caring for a large family.
Some European countries are experimenting with monthly cash compensation to women who leave work to have babies, including Lithuania, Austria and Slovenia. Starting next year, Germany and Bulgaria plan to pay new mothers benefits linked to their previous earnings. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who bemoaned his country's lack of children in his last state-of-the-nation speech in May, has also promised more aid to parents.
Elsewhere, Australia introduced in 2004 a one-time bonus per baby, currently worth about $3,000. The fertility rate is believed to have risen slightly thanks to a combination of the incentive and a booming economy, but is still around 1.8. Australia's finance minister has even exhorted parents to "do your patriotic duty tonight," echoing similar campaigns in the city-state of Singapore, which is still struggling with a fertility rate that hovers barely above 1.2. South Korea has introduced several policies this year, including more financial aid for day care and for fertility treatment.
Payments such as Estonia's are predictably controversial. Some demographers argue that paying people to have a baby simply makes them have one earlier; it doesn't necessarily make them have more. That point is tough to prove for now: Only after the current generation of young women passes menopause will it be clear whether they had more children in their fertile years than women of an earlier age group.
But the experience in places such as France and the Nordic countries suggests that incentives can have an impact. For example, women in Sweden and Norway, which support families with generous benefits, labor laws and child care, have close to two children on average. "Where there are consistent family-oriented policies in place for a long time, people have more children," says Tomas Sobotka of the Vienna Institute of Demography.
The main exception to the rule is the U.S., where the average woman has two children, despite only modest public support for families, largely via tax breaks. Demographers say America's tradition of mass immigration and its large minority populations make it unusual among developed nations. Hispanics, in particular, boost national fertility, with more than three children per woman. The U.S.'s population passed 300 million this week, according to the Census Bureau's estimate. About 55 percent of America's population growth is due to legal and illegal immigrants and their children, according to the Population Reference Bureau in Washington.
[more]


FRANCE
As Europe Grows Grayer, France Devises a Baby Boom
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A01
JUMEAUVILLE, France -- When the municipal day-care center ran out of space because of a local baby boom, the town government gave Maylis Staub and her husband $200 a month to defray the cost of a "maternal assistant" to care for their two children.
When Staub delivered twins last December -- her third and fourth children -- the nation not only increased their tax deductions and child allowances, the government-owned French train system offered 40 percent discounts off tickets for the parents and the children until they reach their 18th birthdays.
After urging women to have children and bolstering family subsidies, France has Europe's second-highest fertility rate. Maylis Staub took a year off work when her twins were born.
"The government favors families a lot," said Staub, 35, a project manager for a French cellphone company. "They understand that families are the future. It's great for us."
While falling birthrates threaten to undermine economies and social stability across much of an aging Europe, French fertility rates are increasing. France now has the second-highest fertility rate in Europe -- 1.94 children born per woman, exceeded slightly by Ireland's rate of 1.99. The U.S. fertility rate is 2.01 children.
In many European countries, park benches are filled with elderly residents. In France, parks overflow with boisterous children, making it an international model for countries struggling with the threat of zero population growth. In recent months, officials from Japan, Thailand and neighboring Germany have traveled to France to study its reproductive secrets.
But the propensity of women here to have more babies has little to do with notions of French romance or the population's formerly strong religious ties to the Roman Catholic Church.
France heavily subsidizes children and families from pregnancy to young adulthood with liberal maternity leaves and part-time work laws for women. The government also covers some child-care costs of toddlers up to 3 years old and offers free child-care centers from age 3 to kindergarten, in addition to tax breaks and discounts on transportation, cultural events and shopping.
This summer, the government -- concerned that French women still were not producing enough children to guarantee a full replacement generation -- very publicly urged French women to have even more babies. A new law provides greater maternity leave benefits, tax credits and other incentives for families who have a third child. During a year-long leave after the birth of the third child, mothers will receive $960 a month from the government, twice the allowance for the second child.
A century ago, France was one of the first European countries to face a declining population. Since then, almost every elected French government -- regardless of party -- has instituted laws that encourage bigger families and make it easier for women to keep their jobs while raising children.
"Politicians realized they had to encourage people to have more babies if they didn't want to live in a country of old people," said France Prioux, director of research for France's National Institute of Demographic Studies.
Most of the subsidies and allowances are income-based, giving low-income families the most help. But higher-income families also receive substantial benefits so that only a fraction of a working mother's salary goes to child-care costs.
<...>
Under French law, a woman can opt not to work or to work part time until her child is 3 years old -- and her full-time job will be guaranteed when she returns. "In other countries, maternity leaves are seen as a handicap for mothers who want to have a career," Staub said. "It's different in France."
[more]

France pays to boost birth rate (sorry, no link)
Friday, September 23, 2005
PARIS, France (Reuters) -- France will give more money to families with three children in an effort to encourage the French to have more babies, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Thursday.
A parent who puts his job on hold to raise a third child will receive 750 euros ($915.6) per month for one year, around 50 percent more than the monthly amount families with two children receive for a three-year period, Villepin said.
Shortening the time period but increasing the sum aims to help mothers get back into their job quicker after giving birth, and prevent them from suffering career disadvantages, government sources have said.
"The birth rate is still insufficient in our country," Villepin said at a national conference on families.
"If the number of families with three children doubled, the replacement of generations would be assured," he said, adding the new measure would cost 140 million euros per year.
France, which already has a generous child care system in place, has a birth rate of 1.9 children per woman -- well above the EU average of around 1.5. In countries such as Italy, Spain, Germany and Poland, the rate is as low as 1.3, data shows.
Villepin also said France would create 15,000 new creche places, double tax credits for some child care costs and improve financial conditions for parents looking after a sick child.
"The measures will allow us to advance in two directions," Villepin said. "To give the French the possibility to have as many children as they want, and to support parents in better protecting their children against society's new threats."
With unemployment at close to 10 percent and high oil prices weighing on consumers, France's conservative government has come under pressure to do more for cash-strapped households.
But France is also under pressure from Brussels to cut its public deficit to below the European Union's limit of three percent of gross domestic product.
Paris has broken the limit every year since 2002, and has told the European Commission its deficit would come in at 3 pct of GDP this year.
Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


GERMANY
Germans get incentives for having babies
By STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer Jan 3, 2007

BERLIN - When her water broke early on New Year's Eve, Julia Gotschlich was mainly thinking about the imminent birth of her second child. But she couldn't help worrying about family finances, too.

She and her husband stood to lose out on more than $13,200 if the baby arrived before midnight, when Germany's generous new family benefits took effect — part of a government effort to raise one of the lowest birthrates in Europe.

Births in Germany dropped 4 percent in 2005 from the previous year, according to figures from the Federal Statistics Agency, to around 690,000. That's the lowest since World War II and lagging even 1946, when 922,000 babies were born even as the country lay in ruins.

A recent government study forecast that Germany's population will drop by as much as 16 percent by 2050, from the current 82.4 million to as little as 69 million. That could hurt the economy by sapping the work force — and undermine the state pension system.

Facing such an alarming demographic trend, the German government has shaken up its financial assistance to parents in a bid to make it easier for working women to have children.

The new "Elterngeld" — or "parent money" — program allows an adult who stops work after a child is born to continue to claim two-thirds of their net wage, up to a maximum $2,375 per month. Low earners can claim 100 percent compensation for lost wages.

One parent can claim for up to 12 months; if both parents take a turn, they can claim the benefit for a total of 14 months — a tweak designed to encourage more fathers to help.

Germany previously paid a flat $400 a month in benefits to needy parents for up to two years. The change is expected to raise the annual outlay in direct payments for parents with infants by about $1.2 billion per year to $5 billion.

Other countries have instituted similar incentive programs to boost birthrates. France and Sweden both pay child subsidies roughly equivalent to those in Germany — but also have an extensive network of low-cost childcare centers that take babies to preschool-aged children.

France offers additional help to some families who need in-home care. The Swedes give either moms or dads 80 percent of their salary for a total of 480 days in a parental leave.

While the French had 12.7 new babies per 1,000 residents in 2004 and the Swedes 11.2, Germany recorded only 8.5 new births — the lowest rate in Europe not counting Vatican City.

Britain introduced a so-called "baby bonds" scheme in 2004, giving a $490 voucher to every newborn to start a trust fund, while a new Russian law entitles families to a bonus of $9,600 following the birth of a second child and any subsequent children.

Gotschlich's baby, Inka Angelina, held off just long enough to qualify for the new German law, emerging 63 minutes into 2007. That means mom will be able to finance a full year off from work as opposed to just eight weeks with her first child.

"At first, I thought: 'Can't you wait a little longer?'" Gotschlich said at Berlin's Auguste-Viktoria Hospital.

As midnight approached, "the doctors and midwives were encouraging me that maybe we would make it into the new year after all, and we did," she said, smiling at her daughter asleep in a bassinet at her side.

There had been media reports about German women taking magnesium tablets, which can prevent premature labor, or putting off planned Caesarean births to qualify for the new bonuses.

Klaus Grunert, a doctor at Auguste-Viktoria Hospital, said some women avoided things thought to help induce labor — from hot baths and massages to sex. But he said none asked doctors to delay births, which the doctors would have refused in any case.

Gotschlich and her husband, a software engineer, decided to have a second child two years ago — long before Chancellor Angela Merkel's left-right coalition took power vowing to do more for families. Although Gotschlich said the family will still earn less than when both she and her husband worked, the new incentive plan will make life easier.

"We'll have to see what kind of vacation we have this year," she said. "We can still afford one, though the car and the washing machine had better not break down."

INDIA
Cash boost for tribal families
By Subir Bhaumik
BBC News, Shillong
Amelia and her husband make a living selling vegetables and fish.
Amelia Sohtun has 17 children and she has recently received a cash reward of several hundred dollars for mothering them.
So have Dorothia Kharbani and Philomena Sohlangpiaw for producing 15 children each.
All three are members of the Khasi tribe in India's north-eastern state of Meghalaya.
National policy in India seeks to limit population growth.
But, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) in Meghalaya has started rewarding Khasi mothers with more than 15 children as part of its declared mission "to save Khasis from being outnumbered by outsiders".
"We have enough land but if our Khasi people don't grow in numbers, migrants from Bangladesh or elsewhere in India will occupy that living space," explained KHADC chairman HS Shylla.
Some mothers say they are grateful for the payments, but women's rights activists have been less happy.
The KHADC is an elected autonomous body of the Khasi tribe and the state government generally avoids interfering with the KHADC in matters of local customs and traditions.
"We are encouraging our people to grow more. Now the Khasi population is around one million in Meghalaya, but we want it to double in the next 10 years," Mr Shylla told the BBC.

RUSSIA
Russian lawmakers pass maternity bill in first reading
Nov 17, 2006

MOSCOW, November 17 (RIA Novosti) - A maternity incentive bill on payouts for women who give birth to more than one child was passed by lawmakers in Russia's State Duma in its first reading Friday.

The president-sponsored bill, aimed at reversing the current decline in the nation's birth rate, will provide for one-off payouts to women who give birth to or adopt a second child after January 1, 2007, and for subsequent births.

But the payouts, which are currently set at 250,000 rubles (a little under $9,400), but will be revised annually to adjust for inflation, come with conditions attached. They could be invested in education, housing, or a pension saving program, but not until the child turns three, or three years after his/her adoption.

The second-birth incentive bill is expected to help Russia overcome a severe demographic crisis. The country's population has been in steady decline since the launch of market reforms in the early 1990s, and, according to the United Nations, it may further fall by one-third by the middle of the century, from today's 142 million.

Ahead of the bill's submission to parliament last month, Deputy Duma Chairman Oleg Morozov said, citing expert estimates, that if enacted, the new legislation could triple the birth rate within three years.

In his annual address to the nation in May, President Vladimir Putin said the population was falling by about 700,000 each year, and pledged financial incentives to women with larger families.

SCOTLAND
Jan 4, 2007
Pregnant women's 'bill of rights'
TANYA THOMPSON SOCIAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT
* Guide on maternity rights at work to be given to all pregnant women
* 1504 British women lodged cases at tribunals in 2005-6, up 46% in 3
years
* Plans to extend maternity pay to a full year
IN THE KNOW
* Pregnant women are entitled to paid time off for antenatal appointments and maternity leave.
* Fathers may be able to take up to two weeks' paid paternity leave once the baby is born.
* Employers must conduct a risk assessment and make arrangements to protect the woman and her unborn child at work.
* Pregnant women are entitled to up to 52 weeks' maternity leave. (Ministers have said they plan to extend maternity-pay entitlement from six to nine months from April 2007, and to a year by the end of this parliament.)
* The woman has the right to request flexible working hours, parental leave and time off to deal with a family emergency.

“Over the long term, however, policies that promote childbearing have had little effect (96, 314, 472).”
Eliminating Targets, Incentives, and Disincentives [for using contraception and/or breeding] a USAID paper.
Bibliography of above paper.

96. DAVANZO, J. and GRAMMICH, C. Barren ground: Eastern Europe’s transition from communism isn’t the only factor affecting the region’s demographics. RAND, Population Matters, Jan. 3, 2001.

314. PANEL ON POPULATION PROJECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON POPULATION, and NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. Posttransition fertility. In: Bongaarts, J. and Bulatao, R.A. Beyond six billion: Forecasting the world’s population. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 2000. 258 p.

472. ZAKHAROV, S.V. and IVANOVA, E.I. Fertility decline and recent changes in Russia: On the threshold of the second demographic transition. In: Davanzo, J. and Farnsworth, G. Russia’s Demographic Crisis. Santa Monica, California, RAND, 1996. 33 p.


149 posted on 01/24/2012 3:03:14 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; allmendream
Unless you can show any causation, what you keep on repeating is irrelevant.

You're noting a pattern too?

150 posted on 01/24/2012 3:06:45 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon
Yes, we were a healthy Republic in a time when it took having seven children to have a moderately above replacement rate of births.

We also had, in 1800, a continent to conquer and a native population to displace. Excess population found a ready release in “Go West Young Man”.

There are reasons why basket case nations have a high birth rate - many of the same reasons why American women in 1800 had a high birth rate - because the future was uncertain and your children your only retirement plan and you needed to have seven or so to count on having a couple survive until adulthood.

151 posted on 01/24/2012 3:07:07 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Well then, where is the show of causation of the huge birth rate of Mexico (7 children per woman) leading to an economic boom compared to the economy of the USA over the same time period?

Or any huge birth rate being associated with any economic powerhouse modern nation?

Correlation is not causation - but there is an obvious and overwhelming correlation between nations that are basket cases and super high birth rates.

While the super low birth rates of moribund socialist states are to be avoided - I fail to see the appeal of the ultra high birth rates in any particular real world example from any nation within the last hundred years.


152 posted on 01/24/2012 3:15:11 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Really? Illegal immigration into the USA has collapsed?

Yes. Read up on it.

I still see millions of them living and working here.

Your powers of logic and rational thinking are simply underwhelming.

Left unanswered was why, if the high birth rate was so healthy economically for Mexico - they had to export so many of them, and remain mired in poverty?

Everyone already knows the answer to that, and it has nothing to do with population and everything to do with fleeing a corrupt government.

Or did you not know about Mexico's dalliances with communism and the drug trade crime and corruption?

153 posted on 01/24/2012 3:21:05 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
will be the biggest unsolvable problem for the next several generations.

It is certainly one of the most overlooked. If true, even more overlooked would be the problem of the Muslim population crash in particular. I have not read Goldman's book, but a friend has told me that he overstates the case for a Muslim population crash, though. Do you think he does?

154 posted on 01/24/2012 3:28:03 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Correlation is not causation - but there is an obvious and overwhelming correlation between nations that are basket cases and super high birth rates.

You've got it 180* wrong.

Modernization leads to decreased fertility rates. Countries that modernized were economically successful, and their fertility rates declined.

Agrarian cultures are not often economic power houses, and their fertility rates decline much more slowly.

Modernization and economic success leads to diminished fertility rates. High fertility rates do not cause economic depression. They are simply vestiges of agrarian societies.

I fail to see the appeal of the ultra high birth rates in any particular real world example from any nation within the last hundred years.

Straw man. No one is calling for ultra high birth rates.

155 posted on 01/24/2012 3:29:17 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; Spengler
I have not read Goldman's book, but a friend has told me that he overstates the case for a Muslim population crash, though. Do you think he does?

No, I think he is spot on. How can you overstate raw fertility rate data? He backs up his case exceedingly well.

By the way, Goldman is a FReeper.

156 posted on 01/24/2012 3:33:54 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I second that Islam is the greatest threat to mankind.


157 posted on 01/24/2012 3:36:51 PM PST by catfish1957 (Save a Pretzel for the Gas Jets!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
So your axiom is FURTHER modified from high birth rates being an unalloyed economic good to there being an ADDITIONAL necessity for good governance!

And yet you cannot seem to mention a single example of a nation with good governance, a high birth rate, and economic success!

A decline in the rate of how many illegal immigrants come into the USA is hardly the “collapse” of illegal immigration in these United States. There are still upwards of ten million of them living and working and reproducing here.

Communism? Really? The wealthiest man in the world is a Mexican who owns Telamundo and you think their economic problem is that they are Communists?

Delusional. They couldn't even qualify as a political party in Mexico because they had so few members!

158 posted on 01/24/2012 3:37:23 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
The greatest threat facing mankind is...

Turnips....perpetuated by the damand of mothers that their children eat them.

159 posted on 01/24/2012 3:44:07 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (The only solution to this primary is a shoot out! Last person standing picks the candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So your axiom is FURTHER modified from high birth rates being an unalloyed economic good to there being an ADDITIONAL necessity for good governance!

You just keep on setting up straw men and knocking them down. Very impressive!

Where on this thread have I said high birth rates are an unalloyed economic good? This thread is about the dire economic, social and military implications of population decline due to below replacement level birth rates.

A decline in the rate of how many illegal immigrants come into the USA is hardly the “collapse” of illegal immigration in these United States. There are still upwards of ten million of them living and working and reproducing here.

You do realize there is a difference between current rates of illegal immigration, and current numbers of illegal immigrants, right? Just because the rate of illegal immigration has collapsed, that's not going to change the static number of illegal immigrants already living here.

160 posted on 01/24/2012 3:47:13 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson