Posted on 04/20/2002 10:20:49 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
| The Bomb that Went Psssst by Austin Ruse “The Population bomb did not explode. It just ended,” writes U.N. expert Austin Ruse. “And not with a bang, not even with a whimper. More like the sound coming from an old stretchy balloon." |
April 10, 2002 / The “Population Bomb” went pssssssst. It did not explode. It just ended. And not with a bang, not even with a whimper. More like the sound coming from an old stretchy balloon. According the United Nations experts, the population explosion is officially over, and this from the meddling institution that helped get the whole thing going in the first place. The U.N. Population Division, official statisticians for the U.N., hosted an expert meeting at U.N. headquarters a few weeks ago and announced their projections for population growth have been wrong. Population-control alarmists have been predicting since I was in the first grade that the world would soon run out of everything — food, natural resources, even space. College dorm posters from 25 years ago showed a planet so full that some were forced to live on overcrowded beaches. This population scare was the engine that drove aggressive population-control programs in the poor brown, black and yellow nations. The population bomb also drove the push for radical acceptance of abortion and environmental extremism. Even the United Nations now accepts that this scenario wasn’t true — not all of the United Nations, but one very influential branch. What U.N. population experts are now saying is that the fertility rate in a number of countries is substantially lower than thought. So low, in fact, that the United Nations is now projecting the world will see a billion fewer people by the year 2050 than previously expected. We’re currently at 6 billion. They had projected we would swell to 10 billion; now they are down to 9 billion. The Population Division first sounded this alarm at a meeting in 1997, when it was reported that more than 60 countries were no longer replacing themselves. Most of these countries are in the developing world. Subsequent reports put the below-replacement group much higher, heading north of 80 countries, and including countries both rich and poor. Dr. Joseph Chamie, head of the U.N. Population Division, is an unbiased statistician. I do not know what his position on abortion is. I suspect he is in favor of it. In any case, Chamie is alarmed about the impending fertility downturn. In fact, he is in something of a rolling debate with other U.N. agencies that love abortion, support it and pay for it, those who believe the world is awash in a dangerous contagion: people. Chamie sees things differently. He issued a report last summer that flatly contradicted the dominant anti-natal ethos of the United Nations. His “World Population Monitoring Report 2001” asserts that, even though population has grown, food production and natural resource extraction have kept ahead of it. He also says that population growth may affect the environment, but that environmental degradation is more complicated than a single factor. He even said declining populations harm the environment. It is on fertility rates and demography that Chamie raises an alarm and raises the hackles of population controllers. Chamie says the crisis is not impending. He reports that Russia shrank by 800,000 people last year. He says the crisis is here. Two years ago he hosted a meeting that looked at the crisis of aging populations, including the prospect of intergenerational competition for financial resources. Now he fears something more. What happens when populations begin not just to age, but also to fall? So alarmed at this development, the Population Division held an expert meeting last year to consider solutions to the huge demographic and economic dislocation occurring because of an aging and dying population. Their single solution was massive immigration to the developed world from the developing world, something that most countries view as unacceptable. And new numbers show even the poor south is now experiencing below-replacement fertility. The larger question is this: Once the ethos of small families is bred into us, how is that changed? We know that having children shows a remarkable generosity. This kind of generosity was once commonplace. It seems to have been replaced with a desire for European vacations, single-malt scotch and SUVs. They told us to have just enough children to replace ourselves, and no more. In order to get there, a kind of greed had to be instilled. Once the greed for things is instilled in the human heart, how is it changed? Why have only two children? Why not one? Why not none? What policymakers have discovered is they do not know how to get couples to put the brakes on fertility decline. They do not know how to stop couples from stopping having children. A few years ago Sweden, yes Sweden, offered tax incentives for increased family size. It worked only briefly. I am frequently asked how many people the world can hold. What a crazy question. How in the world can I know? How can anyone know? It is really not our business anyway. All I know is that when I fly anywhere in the world and I look down from on high, I see a remarkably empty planet and know that we could use a few more friends. Now, it seems, even the United Nations is catching on to this. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. Austin Ruse, president of U.N. watchdog C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute), welcomes comments at austinruse@c-fam.org.
|
I want to be the first one to predict same story, different subject in about 5 more years. Byline will be "Al Gore Was All Wet".....
The decline in birth rates is old, old news (at least to anyone who's been paying attention for the past several decades). Malthusian theorists believed that the population would inevitably expand geometrically, while resources could at most grow linearly (if indeed they weren't eventually exhausted). But it turns out that it is knowledge that expands geometrically, and the technological advances brought about by human knowledge and applied intelligence have vastly increased our effective resources. At the same time our greater wealth and standards of living and lifespans and health and leisure and education and other opportunities have resulted in a voluntary reduction in birth rates. So the Malthusian disaster scenario has gone Psssst.
If Mr. Ruse wants to increase birth rates, there's an easy formula for doing so: Destroy wealth and trade, suppress individual freedom, eliminate opportunity, substitute indoctrination for education, crush people's hope for a better future, and in general create a retrograde society in place of modern civilization. When poverty is pervasive and infant mortality is high and life expectancies are low, people may once again feel that they have to produce lots of children in hopes that at least some of them will survive and maybe even help support their parents in old age.
Russian and China are both mixed bags. Russia has a well-educated, literate population; is technogically advanced in many areas; and is recovering economically from the vestiges of communism. China still represses its people politically but has moved quite a distance from its economically repressive Maoist past. Scientific knowledge is available in most areas of the world as modern communications bypass barriers. So even in many poor and underdeveloped countries the birth rates are now dropping below replacement levels, following the lead of the most advanced nations.
So my comments about how to raise the birth rate were made sarcastically rather than seriously. With the possible exception of Islamic nations, the world is not likely to revert to barbarism.
Mexico is strsangling on its own birth rate. Mexico needs to export 25,000,000 people per ten year period to stay even with its rate of deterioration.
China has solved its problem with imposed reproductive restriction and forced abortion. Were it not for that, China would have self-destructed.
You mean we gotta vote for the Democrats?
Most of those millions of people who are said to have AIDS in Africa have never actually been tested for AIDS. Any person who shows symptoms that MIGHT be indicative of AIDS is counted as having it. The problem is that the same symtoms are also indicative of (and hugely more likely to be) malaria, dysentary, cholera, typhus, tuberculosis, etc., etc., etc.... In other words, it's a manufactured crisis, and just like global warming, it the proposed solutions just happen to coincide with the socialist agenda: AIDS research, AIDS awareness and homosexual rights, income redistribution, devolvement of national sovereignty to international agencies, and overall growth of bureaucratic government. In other words, it's all your fault, whitey.
And as for famine, as P.J. O'Rourke says, famine is almost never caused by lack of food. It's usually caused by the inability or unwillingness of those in charge of the starving people to give them food, whether it's the incompetence of central planning or the blasted economies where food itself is currency and, therefore, power. There was plenty of food in Somalia, for instance; but the warlords kept it for themselves.
The answer here is to stop listening to the UN.
The Elite Green enviral nazis, hate all humans except for themselves. So they pushed this bad science to justify their full blown hysterical support of abortion.
They are happy there are at least 30 million less Americans due to their abortion strategy. Then millions and millions more in the rest of the world.
Each aborted baby means that baby never grew up to be a human daring to be alive using oxygen, water, energy and food for survival.
Hmm, what else might they be wrong about? Give these freaks no power. Take their toys away and make them go sit in the corner.
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.