Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia Nears a Milestone
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 5 December 2012 | LUKAS I. ALPERT

Posted on 12/13/2012 8:36:12 PM PST by MinorityRepublican

MOSCOW—Russia is on target to register its first natural population growth since the fall of the Soviet Union, with a slightly higher number of births than deaths being recorded so far this year, the labor minister said Wednesday.

Through the end of October, Russia had recorded 790 more births than deaths—a minute advance, but one that could mark a potential turning point in a troubling demographic trend that has seen the country's population on the decline since the early 1990s.

"Cumulative natural growth was recorded from the start of the year for the first time in many years," Labor Minister Maxim Topilin said.So far, Russia's birth rate in 2012 has risen 7% rise on the year with an increase seen in 80 of the country's 83 regions. Meanwhile, Russia's death rate has fallen 1.5% in the same period, the ministry said. In all of 2011, Russia saw 132,000 more deaths than births, the state statistic service said.

The figures stand in contrast to predictions made by many demographic experts in recent years—including the United Nations Population Division—that Russia faces a serious demographic crisis, with the potential of seeing its population fall by as much as 30% by 2050. But those who have kept a close eye on the situation warn that despite the signs of a turnaround, Russia faces a long road ahead.

"Demographic trends are like oil tankers—you cannot turn them around immediately," said James Nixey, a Russian policy expert at Chatham House in London. "What seems to me to be important is the working-age population—and actually that is something we do know 18 years ahead of time and it is rather depressing news for Russia."

Russia's demographic decline was so steep in the 1990s that the country was losing more than one million people a year.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Russia
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/13/2012 8:36:13 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
"a troubling demographic trend that has seen the country's population on the decline since the early 1990s. (Emphasis supplied)"

Why this obsession with fecundity? We no longer live in the Edwardian age, we do not need upstairs help or downstairs help, stable help or nursery help; we have electricity, modern conveniences, robots etc. We actually live much better than the nobility of the late Victorian or Edwardian age.

Oh, you mean we have to have more babies so that we can sustain Social Security and Medicare? So you think that the way to ameliorate Ponzi schemes is inveigle more participants?

"Russia's demographic decline was so steep in the 1990s that the country was losing more than one million people a year."

If the United States were to lose 1 million people a year it would take more than a century and a half to restore the country to the condition it was in when I was born. At that time, on the few superhighways we had, there were considerably fewer traffic jams, taxes were lower, schools were better, crime was less, culture was higher.

Please explain to me why we need now to go from 310 million inhabitants to 400 million? Why is the gain of population a good thing and the loss of population necessarily a bad thing?


2 posted on 12/13/2012 11:22:49 PM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

3 posted on 12/13/2012 11:29:45 PM PST by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet - Mater tua caligas exercitus gerit ;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Russia is an absolute different case. There are more than two times fewer of them, they have 10 time zones and billions of angry people on the south who hate and want to kill them.


4 posted on 12/14/2012 2:37:05 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

So do the Israelis. Do you suggest their survival lies in increasing manifold their population?


5 posted on 12/14/2012 2:50:28 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Absolutely.


6 posted on 12/14/2012 3:02:41 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
Actually, Russia's economy is almost entirely limited to extraction industries, oil minerals and so forth. Therefore, every new mouth in the population reduces or dilutes the original population's share of the value extracted-assuming anything like an equitable distributive share.

One can say that I have lost one half of my ownership in America Inc. as a result of the dilution of my stock by more than 50%. It may be that some new members of the population have increased overall wealth but they have also made increasing demands on that wealth, certainly they have made increasing demands on the natural resources, not excluding national parks for example, which waters down my share. Additionally, new members of the population have caused my taxes to increase to fund infrastructure and schools etc. which further depreciate the value of my stock and reduces my dividends.

Neither Israel nor Russia will be the stronger for increasing their populations. Each might well be weaker. Wars are going to be fought by robots and satellites not by World War I him masses of infantry or even World War II masses of infantry. Israel cannot possibly free increase its population of less than 10 million enough to cope on a man-to-man basis with its enemies in the Arab-Muslim world which amount to more than one and a half billions.

Israel's answer, like Russia's and ours is to increase efficiency, exploit technology, and improve the lifestyle of a static population, hopefully a shrinking population, to make the job easier.

If you have an increasing population, you will have socialism, I repeat, you will have socialism. It is inevitable that citizens will turn to the government to protect them against the encroachment of their neighbors. I Just heard on the news a few moments ago that the EPA is going to regulate at great expense freshwater, by defining it to be a pollutant. All of this is inevitable not just because of the mindset of the left but because the left will exploit the press of humanity to get its way and there will be no option for the beleaguered individual but to turn to the government for protection.


7 posted on 12/14/2012 3:21:25 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Please explain to me why we need now to go from 310 million inhabitants to 400 million? Why is the gain of population a good thing and the loss of population necessarily a bad thing?”

It’s called China. Yes, we can stick our heads in the sand, just like we did in the 1930s, but that doesn’t mean the bad people in the rest of the world will go away and never bother us.

Life isn’t that easy - sorry.


8 posted on 12/14/2012 4:06:33 AM PST by BobL (Did you know that the Chinese now buy close to twice as many new cars as Americans each year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Wars are going to be fought by robots and satellites not by World War I him masses of infantry or even World War II masses of infantry.”

We tried your scheme in late 1990 in Iraq, only to be laughed at by them. It took boots on the ground to actually win that war. We tried the same stunt in Kosovo...same results.

I keep hearing your prediction, and keep seeing it proven wrong.


9 posted on 12/14/2012 4:09:26 AM PST by BobL (Did you know that the Chinese now buy close to twice as many new cars as Americans each year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BobL
It’s called China. Yes, we can stick our heads in the sand, just like we did in the 1930s,

I assume you are referring to the 1930s invasion by the Japanese of Manchuria and China, an example of a numerically inferior population easily conquering a numerically superior population by having resort to technology and organization. Do you suggest that, 80 years later, we attempt to match the Chinese in population? I think it might be better to resort to technology.

"Life isn’t that easy - sorry."

No need to be condescending, Bob, specially since your condescension is wide of the mark. Nowhere in my original or in any subsequent post did I suggest that we ignore China or anyone else. I suggest we defend ourselves by being smart, not numerous. Hydrogen bombs,like Sam Colt's revolver are great equalizers and have no respect for numbers.


10 posted on 12/14/2012 4:26:46 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

bmfl


11 posted on 12/14/2012 4:32:03 AM PST by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Do you suggest that, 80 years later, we attempt to match the Chinese in population?”

You remind me of the people in college saying that if we had 10 nukes and the Soviets had 10,000, they couldn’t do anything to us, since we could (maybe) hit Moscow. So why did we need the other 9,990 nukes. Luckily we had adults in charge then.

Well you can keep with your depopulation dreams, even you know it ain’t happening, and we are going to have more and more people (and, unfortunately, of the wrong type).


12 posted on 12/14/2012 4:34:54 AM PST by BobL (Did you know that the Chinese now buy close to twice as many new cars as Americans each year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Actually we used technology in the Balkans as we did in Libya and very few boots on the ground in either place.

As to Iraq and Afghanistan, in our quest to fight smart we might ask ourselves why do we have boots on the ground in either place? A misplaced fear of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? A misplaced notion that occupying Afghanistan will somehow make us safe from 19 fanatics with box cutters? Perhaps we should reevaluate what we are trying to accomplish in the war on terror. Maybe we should just bomb the hell out of them, that seem to work in Libya. Putting boots on the ground and pouring blood and treasure into the Sands of Iraq and Afghanistan are sequelae to 9/11 but how do they advances the war on terror, they merely impoverish us and make our citizens even more resistant to combat. The result? A caliphate from the border of China to the Atlantic shores of Africa and Iran stronger than ever and soon to have the bomb. For this you want to put more boots on the ground?

Have we actually won the war in Iraq? A lot of people do not think so. Many of them live in Iran.

Whatever your views on these specific engagements, you still have not demonstrated a nexus between our security and a growing population.


13 posted on 12/14/2012 4:41:24 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Israel has efficience, Russia has a room to increase it as well, it was a #2 industrial power just 30 years ago after all.


14 posted on 12/14/2012 4:45:47 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BobL
I dream many dreams, like a country devoted to its constitution, a federal government which taxes little and spends less, a land where liberty thrives, dreams that are no more likely than a dream of a stagnant or shrinking population.

You apparently not only have given up on these dreams but you relish the prospects of a swarming of population and a shrinking of liberty. You can have a swelling population or you can enjoy your Second Amendment rights but, ultimately, you cannot have both. You can have a swelling population or you can have liberty of disposition over your own real estate but you cannot have both. The list goes on and on.

For the record, I have never advocated a reduction of nukes. I have been on the side of Eisenhower on that matter since the 1950s. Without nukes, population means a great deal, with them, population becomes targets.


15 posted on 12/14/2012 4:52:47 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Actually we used technology in the Balkans as we did in Libya and very few boots on the ground in either place.”

It was surrogates in both countries, but it was boots. We didn’t conquer one square meter of territory ourselves there.

Look at Afghanistan - we stuck in a bunch of forts. Taking one step out gets us shot at (or worse). The women there ARE STILL having to dress like astronauts to go outdoors - we influence nothing in that country. The Taliban own it, just as they did before we invaded. We’d need half a million troops there to have any control over it. Drones just don’t cut it. Sorry.


16 posted on 12/14/2012 4:53:27 AM PST by BobL (Did you know that the Chinese now buy close to twice as many new cars as Americans each year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish
Israel has efficience, Russia has a room to increase it as well, it was a #2 industrial power just 30 years ago after all.

I do not think that was the case.


17 posted on 12/14/2012 4:56:04 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“You can have a swelling population or you can enjoy your Second Amendment rights but, ultimately, you cannot have both.”

The population has practically doubled in my lifetime and now I can carry guns around and buy 50 cals. Seems to me that both is possible - provided that the makeup of the population is correct (which I pointed out earlier). The idea that there is some upper limit to population bothers me - in theory there might be (and there probably is), but that limit is defined by the capability of the people and is likely very, very, high. When the indians ruled, 2,000,000 was the most this land could sustain, and no doubt that there were some chiefs worried about “over active” squalls, even then.


18 posted on 12/14/2012 4:59:50 AM PST by BobL (Did you know that the Chinese now buy close to twice as many new cars as Americans each year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Imagine California had a population of only 5 million Americans in 1990. It could be effectively Mexico. I agree with you about explosive population growth. It is not good, really. It is not the case for both Russia and Israel anyway.


19 posted on 12/14/2012 5:07:12 AM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Look, you may say the British won the war in Afghanistan in 1898, by 2010 they were out. You might say that we won the war in Iraq but there is no guarantee that Iraq will not revert into an Islamist state. You are quite right about Afghanistan, but what is your point? Do you want to fight a war in Afghanistan man for man? What happens if you win it? One year later after we are gone the women will still be in burqas and the men will still be walking around with Kalashnikovs and they will be superstitious and as primitive as ever.

My point is that if a country poses an existential threat to the United States, we should react in a manner that is congruent with our national interests. We have not done that in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that has nothing to do with the necessity to maintain 400 million people instead of 300 million people so we can fight these kinds of wars. Can you honestly say that if we had 500 million people living in America that the outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan would have been different? The first question you have to ask yourself, do we want to fight these kinds of wars? Second, if we are forced into such a war, do we fight it the way we fought Iraq and Afghanistan or do we change the rules of engagement?

I believe that these wars have made us less safe because they have impoverished us, they have put Barack Obama in office, and they have foreclosed wars on the ground from being waged when and where they are necessary, as might well be the case in Iran.


20 posted on 12/14/2012 5:09:28 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BobL
If you want to see the inverse connection vividly demonstrated between population and liberty try carrying a firearm around in a high density blue state. Try carrying a 50 caliber weapon around and see how much liberty you have.

My objection to runaway population growth, indeed from this point on any population growth, is not Malthusian, I believe technology will keep us fed, but one of concern for constitutional liberty and quality of life.

You can no longer build on property if the feds spot the wrong kind of varmints or if they espy a puddle. Your liberty of dominion over your property has been severely diminished. If it were not so, your property would become uninhabitable from the actions of your near neighbors. Your water and air would be polluted, you would not be able to sleep from the noise, they would vote you out of your property anyway. The next time you have to wait to go through Yellowstone Park ask yourself whether you want 400, 500 million people competing.


21 posted on 12/14/2012 5:21:28 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Great post.


22 posted on 12/14/2012 5:32:11 AM PST by TADSLOS (No need to watch the movie "Idiocracy". We're living it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Is this an increase in their Muslim population or across the ethnicities?


23 posted on 12/14/2012 5:50:11 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Why this obsession with fecundity? We no longer live in the Edwardian age, we do not need upstairs help or downstairs help, stable help or nursery help; we have electricity, modern conveniences, robots etc. We actually live much better than the nobility of the late Victorian or Edwardian age.

________________________

I sure could use upstairs and downstairs help. LOL. You may not think that the Victorian/Edwardians lived better lives than we do, but the memories of my family says otherwise. I will give you the Auto robot and the Washer/Dryer Robot. But in day to day life it would be better to live in groups with help instead of the atomized, government supported ways of today.

Small jobs are important to the fabric of society. Elimination of small jobs impoverishes us all.


24 posted on 12/14/2012 5:58:52 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

There is considerable difference in population growth in a functioning society and in a dysfunctional society.

The statistic in question can be interpreted to mean the old and weak have died off leaving a healthier young population.

The men may or may not still be alcoholics to the point they are in capable of functioning in a job. The women, especially a cohort of young women, might not have to carry the whole burden of the society and chose not to have their child aborted.

Putin’s challenge now is to provide resources and freedom for those younger people to take hold of the society and go forward.

It is pretty plain when comparing the resurgent China that is spectacularly emerging from the Communist disease and Russia that has floundered and may in fact still be dying that new Russian leadership failed. Given it’s abundant resources, Russia should have the ability to thrive if it gets it’s head on straight.


25 posted on 12/14/2012 6:06:47 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....The fairest Deduction to be reduced is the Standard Deduction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
Costume period epics like Downtown Shabby portray a glamorized version of the Edwardian era but the lives of the servants were not glamorous at all. They had long hours at menial tasks with no job security and very little hope of advancement. Yes, they had their place in society, in a pecking order, but they were demeaned and they had no option for the most part to pull stakes and go elsewhere.

The place in society, cemented by the immutable ordering of society, permitted the "living in groups" which has a very human appeal extending back to the cave. The anonymity of urban life in a densely populated society is deadening and it is also not an atmosphere conducive to liberty, perhaps license, but not real liberty.

I take your point.


26 posted on 12/14/2012 6:14:56 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Costume period epics like Downtown Shabby portray a glamorized version of the Edwardian era but the lives of the servants were not glamorous at all. They had long hours at menial tasks with no job security and very little hope of advancement. Yes, they had their place in society, in a pecking order, but they were demeaned and they had no option for the most part to pull stakes and go elsewhere.

___________________

I have no idea of period costumed shows, I own no television. However I knew a number of the people and know the stories of others who worked and lived with my family over almost a century. I know that people who treated their help shabbily were looked down upon, that my family provided homes and work for people who probably would not have made it in other less sheltered settings (face it, working as a household servant is not for the ambitious or fully able), that treating people well was important and over the years these people graced out Sunday dinner table as guests and “family.”

That time is gone now. But something has been lost, that was important. I still remember looking at the soap stored under the basement stairs that my great-grandmother, the cook and the daily made and stored. More of a Proverbs 31 house.


27 posted on 12/14/2012 6:40:35 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Costume period epics like Downtown Shabby portray a glamorized version of the Edwardian era but the lives of the servants were not glamorous at all. They had long hours at menial tasks with no job security and very little hope of advancement. Yes, they had their place in society, in a pecking order, but they were demeaned and they had no option for the most part to pull stakes and go elsewhere.

___________________

I have no idea of period costumed shows, I own no television. However I knew a number of the people and know the stories of others who worked and lived with my family over almost a century. I know that people who treated their help shabbily were looked down upon, that my family provided homes and work for people who probably would not have made it in other less sheltered settings (face it, working as a household servant is not for the ambitious or fully able), that treating people well was important and over the years these people graced out Sunday dinner table as guests and “family.”

That time is gone now. But something has been lost, that was important. I still remember looking at the soap stored under the basement stairs that my great-grandmother, the cook and the daily made and stored. More of a Proverbs 31 house.


28 posted on 12/14/2012 6:40:40 AM PST by Chickensoup (Leftist Totalitarian Fascism coming to a country like yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I suggest we defend ourselves by being smart,

And there it is in a nutshell. The desire to increase the population in places like Russia, European American families, etc.

It will never be said but it is born in desire to dilute the third world that is pouring into our countries.

29 posted on 12/14/2012 8:47:53 AM PST by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

You have some points...but the bottom line remains - those with the population WILL get their way in the future world. Yellowstone will not be much fun to visit if the US is reduced to Third World status simply because we don’t have enough people to defend our interests overseas.


30 posted on 12/14/2012 3:48:27 PM PST by BobL (Did you know that the Chinese now buy close to twice as many new cars as Americans each year?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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