Skip to comments.UN WARNS OF UNDERPOPULATION WOES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Posted on 08/20/2002 6:58:02 PM PDT by Polycarp
LifeSite Daily News
Tuesday August 20, 2002
UN WARNS OF UNDERPOPULATION WOES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
NEW YORK, August 20, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The New York Times issued warnings from United Nations Statistics chief Dr. Joseph Chamie today noting the soon-to-be-felt high toll of the low birth rate in developed countries. The paper described the current situation of low births and growing elderly populations as dynamics which "cause havoc" in retirement systems such as those in place throughout most of the developed world.
The paper reports that in countries such as Italy with a fertility rate of 1.2 children per woman, contributions of workers into the social security system can be as high as 40 percent of their salaries. Dr. Chamie and other experts warn of drastic changes that will be required to cope with the effects of underpopulation.
"The age of retirement will have to increase. The benefits to the elderly will probably decrease. Taxation for the workers will probably increase," said Dr. Chamie. Another expert Dr. Paul Samuelson spoke about mandating saving for retirement, "voluntarily or coercively, in our working years in order to be able, given our numbers, to pay for our longer years of retirement."."
While noting the disastrous effect of radical population control in the developed world, the United Nations nevertheless suggests poor countries maintain strict population control. While the UN suggests population control in the developing world will serve to better economies other studies have suggested the opposite.
In fact, the U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), written by Henry Kissinger was designed to counter growing populations in developing nations so that they would not threaten U.S. economic superiority. NSSM 200, subtitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," warned that increasing populations in developing countries threatened U.S. strategic, economic, and military interests. It suggested that competition from new world powers would rise when developing nations had sufficient populations to utilize their national resources to their full potential.
See more LifeSite coverage on NSSM 200: http://184.108.40.206/waronfamily/nssm200/index.html
See the NYT coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/science/earth/20ECON.html
NSSM 2000: blueprint for de-population
by Jean Guilfoyle
The population-control ideology and the means to achieve it can be found in a U.S. executive-level government document entitled National security study memorandum 200: Implications of worldwide population growth for U.S. security and overseas interests (NSSM 200), published in 1974 and declassified in 1989. Although this plan of action was to be activated in developing countries, it was designed as a two-edged sword that could be swung with equal determination in both developed and developing countries alike. The document was signed by Henry Kissinger and directed to the secretaries of defense, agriculture and central intelligence, the deputy secretary of state, and the administrator of the Agency for International Development, with a copy to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The focus of the study was the "international political and economic implications of population growth."
The study identified 13 "key countries" in which "special U.S. political and strategic interests" existed. The targeted nations were: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.
U.S. security interests were seen as threatened by demographic and political realities in lesser-developed countries (LDCs), and the age structure of high-fertility nations with large numbers of young people. Young people were considered a potential threat to multi-national corporations. Revolutionary actions and counter-revolutionary coups in countries with large populations were viewed as posing the danger of expropriation of foreign investments, and creating political or national security problems for the U.S. Also mentioned were racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious factors, where "differential rates of population growth (exists) among these groups."
A major U.S. security interest concerned access to "reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals," and the terms for exploration and exploitation of those resources. The study advised that civil disturbances affecting the "smooth flow of needed materials" would be less likely to occur "under conditions of slow or zero population growth."
The expression of resistance to global population strategies at the World Population Conference in Bucharest, in August, 1974, created a need to "persuade" LDC leaders to assist in population reduction within the targeted countries. Those objections came from countries wanting to ensure that any "new international economic order" would respect national sovereignty. In addition, "There was general consternation ... when at the beginning of the conference the (World Population Plan of Action) was subjected to a slashing, five-pronged attack led by Algeria, with the backing of several African countries; Argentina, supported by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, and ... some other Latin American countries; the Eastern European group, less Romania; the PRC and the Holy See" (86-87).
The attack led eventually to a worldwide propaganda effort to "create demand" for population-control technologies, and extol the benefits of population reduction within the nations: "Development of a worldwide political and popular commitment to population stabilization is fundamental to any effective strategy. This requires the support and commitment of key LDC leaders. This will only take place if they clearly see the negative impact of unrestricted population growth and believe it is possible to deal with this question through governmental action" (100).
Sensitive to the charge of interference in the internal policies of nations, the document said, "We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance ... of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs." In light of this, the document called for "integrating population factors in national plans, particularly (within) health services, education, agricultural resources and development" while relating "population policies and family-planning programs to major sectors of development: health, nutrition, agriculture, education, social services, organized labor, women's activities, and community development" (21-2).
Sharpening this protective camouflage, the document recommended the integration of family planning with health programs: "Finally, providing integrated family planning and health services on a broad basis would help the U.S. contend with the ideological charge that the U.S. is more interested in curbing the numbers of LDC people than it is in their future and well-being" (117).
In the establishment of American-funded public policy, NSSM 200 suggested that population factors and population policies should be considered in all "Country Assistance Strategy Papers and Development Assistance Program multi-year papers.... Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand," the document continued, "the allocation of scarce PL480 (food) resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production."
Again, a cautionary warning accompanied the recommendation: "In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion" (106-107). It was also recommended that other organizations, agencies, multilateral institutions and embassies participate in the establishment of population initiatives where resistance was prevalent. The use of satellite communications for propaganda was also recommended: "Beyond seeking to reach and influence national leaders, improved worldwide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other population education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA (U.S. Information Agency) and USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development). We should give higher priorities in our information programs worldwide for this area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements with multilateral institutions in population education programs" (117).
The role of the Department of State and USAID in the formation of "the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to generate a multilateral effort in population as complement to the bilateral actions of AID and other donor countries" was described (121). Acting through the UNFPA gave the additional benefit of avoiding "the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed-country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash."
"The U.S. can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries" (114-5).
Finally, an "alternative" view was presented, which maintained that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now." Here, it was asked whether food would be considered "an instrument of national power" (118-120).
NSSM 200 was a statement composed after the fact. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. had worked diligently behind the scenes to advance the population-control agenda at the United Nations, contributing the initial funding of $1 million.
A Department of State telegram, dated July 1969, reported the support of John D. Rockefeller III, among others, for the appointment of Rafael Salas of the Philippines as senior officer to co-ordinate and administer the UN population program. The administrator of the UN Development Program reported confidentially that he preferred someone such as Salas who had the "advantage of color, religion (Catholic) and conviction."
Why should this be a matter of interest to other countries? For two reasons. First, NSSM 200 describes the ideology and the methods for instituting population policies within sovereign nations. Second, in order to recognize the forceful determination of the program's propagators.
But there is another reason: look at us and learn. The people most seriously damaged by such a program will always be the people of the advocate nation itself. Former under-secretary for global affairs Timothy Wirth, when asked about the abortion issue by a reporter, responded lightly, "It's just another technology."
The U.S. has lost over 36 million children to abortion since 1973. It would be impossible to calculate the numbers lost through abortifacient drugs and devices. This much we do know: over 30 per cent of our youth between the ages of 15 and 25 are gone.
They're getting worried about exactly WHO is going to pay the bills, eh?
Add a war into the equation, with its necessary privation, and you get what they're worried about. Euthanasia.
It all seems to move as a piece, doesn't it? The Roman writer Polybius wrote in his 'Histories' that the decline and fall of the Greek civilization was directly tied to abortion and infanticide. The Romans, as well, had few children.
Not good examples to follow.
Low birth rate in developed countries is good news as far as I'm concerned.
Now if only we would turn away all those immigrants.
And since the UN and the Times thinks population growth is good, I am confirmed in my opinion that no population growth is better.
If high birth rate alone was good then places like Mexico and Latin America and the Middle East should have excellent economies. The US would have a better future if it's high population growth rate was in the middle class but it's the indigent class that's growing rapidly in numbers instead, which is why third world immigration will harm us.
So are we, I'm sad to say. So are we.
We hardly need aliens for some imagined shortage of people - not when underemployment is the norm in America and has been for the past two decades.
It actually is rising now at a slower rate than in the past.
Population issues are very complex. Remember that Niger has the lowest population per square mile, but is one of the poorest nations in the world. Hong Kong (taken independently of China) has the highest population density on Earth, yet is one of the most prosperous cities as well.
BTW: Myself and my colleagues have been doing quite well in recent years. I don't see too many middle and upper income Americans "suffering on the bread line" as you seem to imply.
Oh, well, what's new about the UN speaking out of both sides of its mouth?
1. They have no choice but to submit to the will of the husband and no other place to be than the home.
2. They are second class citizens and so, have to submit to the rapists too.
3. Being childless is considered shameful.
4. Women wed as children, and so get started early.
5. People do not know about contraceptives.
6. Men won't use rubbers because it is unmanly.
7. Male heirs are considered important; if you don't succeed, try, try again.
8. Education is poor and neither males nor females have anything else to do and are not concerned about whether or not they have the means to feed another mouth before they get in bed.
9. Male children are considered essential for taking care of the parents in their old age, so male children are considered an insurance policy.
10. Child labor in the fields or in other areas is often the only way to keep a the parent's and other family members afloat. (This includes things like the sale of male children to perverts in Afghanistan for sex toys and the small bit of wealth the sale can bring.)
11. Women have virtually no choice in who they marry; men who in western countries would be unsuitable marriage material doomed to 'extinction' can get a mate, and have children, when the women are a 'captive audience.'
In prosperous countries, people are better educated and want to explore more of what life has to offer. This means:
1. People marry later in life, and this takes away the woman's prime childbearing years.
2. People spend more time in school and at work in order to have the kind of lifestyle they want, rather than do without in order to have many children. There is less time to spend in bed but a great deal more time to spend traveling, learning to fly, sail, to scuba dive, etc, things people in third world countries or people with too many kids to support simply can't do.
3. Traveling and lifestyles of westernized people often involve considerable time apart from one's mate. We don't spend our entire lives in a 15 mile circle, not knowing what lies over the next hill.
4. Having children in prosperous countries is considered to be a great expense, tax-deductions or not. Women want to have good health care so they won't end up dying very young or dying in their thirteenth pregnancy like their grandmother did. Health care concerns cost money and sometimes even more time at work to acquire, as so many people are forced to work to obtain health insurance owing to the enormously inflated costs of health care we have because of lawsuits and malpractice insurance, and paying for indigent health care and so forth. In western countries children must be educated and this also incurs expenses and hassles not seen in third world countries.
5. Children are not seen as neccessary to provide care for aging parents and frequently leave that duty to the society at large. Adults often prepare for their old age and so, have no need to rely on children and grandchildren.
6. Children in western countries are not viewed as potential field hands- indeed, they can't work by law.
7. The likelihood of raising a kid to adulthood is very high in western societies, and so, people do not feel the need to have numerous offspring to ensure passing on their name and genes. They have one or two kids and then decide to stop so they can maintain their status quo.
8. Western children are frequently spoiled and whiney; so people are reluctant to have too many of them because they assume children are more expensive than they really have to be. They wait longer and longer to save the money they think is neccessary to have a kid because costs are so inflated by submitting to material concerns.
9. The most successful people in westernized countries must work to support the least successful through taxation; thus the people able to support and successfully raise the most kids are unable to do so because the wealth that would go towards producing a large family is confiscated. This confiscation requires even more time away from family life, which limits childbearing time and also can result in a high divorce rate, which also impacts the birth rate. While their money frequently goes to support the least successful people, to the point of 'subsidizing' out of wedlock births, the less successful people are not as able to raise kids successfully and often resort to abortions, child abandonment, and neglect. Thus the infant mortality is high among the less successful. The number of children per family is lower.
10. Westernized countries are also places of freedom of personal choice. There is decision-making involved in every aspect of life; nothing is simple. Educated people are more aware of consequences and think everything through in order to virtually plan the kid's life out before even having him. This takes away from family time and makes people reluctant to have large families with all of the worries that go with them, particularly when there is no need to have as many kids as possible.
11. And thanks to lawyers prospective parents have to worry about their kids suing them. ;-)
Well, when we have legalized killing your own unborn baby at will (and when there are groups out there that actually encourage this sort of thing), what else can one expect?
I don't like the UN, but its the message, not the messanger that should be heard here. They are accurately pointing out the consequences of low population growth in DEVELOPED (read western) nations to the stability of the economies of those nations. Most of Europe, China, and other places are in slowing growth or population decline and the impacts on work force availability and retirement costs pointed out here are correct. The US would be in the same boat if it were not for its immigration policy, like it or not (and I am not in favor of open borders - I do favor the 'Bring us your best and brightest who want to assimilate' policy).
OTOH, the poorest nations, and coincidently the muslem populations, are growing while their standard of living does not improve. The result is an unstable future and threat for us (those western nations and civilized governments.)
This warning is echoed in studies from our own think tanks and advisors on national security, so focus on the message.
You do have my permission to shoot the messenger. :)
Prosperity is more important than the economy.
Theordore (he detested the vulgar nickname, "Teddy") Roosevelt also hoped to conquer Canada to obtain room for all those gazillion Americans he hoped to add.
But since America hasn't acquired lebensraum in Canada and appears unlikely to do so in the future, we have no more room for any more people unless you like being forced to share and forced to take turns by more government and more laws regimenting your existence.
I would rather be free.
It is not so much the stability of the economy that is threatened.
It is more the wealth-producing methods of the wealthy that are threatened.
Wealth-producing methods that depend on the Sisypean need for increasing numbers of people to sustain production.
It is more the wealth-producing methods of the wealthy that are threatened.
Its much more than stability of the economy. Its has to do with everything that is involved in national security. It could take months to debate what all is included in that - culture, ideology, economy, soveriegnty, etc. I wont presume, but your comment sounds like you have something against society where some are more wealthy than others. I wont debate that philosophy if that is the case, except to say I believe in the free enterprise system and that those who work hard and take risks will have opportunities to rise in financial stature and at the same time provide employment opportunities for others. I don't have a problem with this as long as its ethical.
But, back to the article, the threat to western culture and indirectly world stability by western population decline with respect to the third world population boom is very real.
The only threat is that too many Americans haven't the stomach to make the sacrifices that would result from standing against the barbarians at the gate.
How so many Americans are willing to give up their country and their freedom to the crowding of the teaming horde just to buy another five or ten years of questionable comfort is astounding.
But then by definition half of all Americans are of below average intelligence.
Add to that number the intelligent fools, the mentally ill, the cowards, the overly sentimental, and a number of wily communists--and I suppose it's no surprise the majority will lie down and give up their country piece by piece, year by year. to the invading hoardes.
Appease the invaders all you want, but there will come the day when it will be obvious to even the most foolish American that they have allowed the destruction of their freedom.
And by then it will be too late.
I feel like Churchill warning about the rise of Nazism in the 1930's.
New Hampshire will soon be filling up with the wealthy--those same wealthy who paid for the propaganda that convinced you immigration is wonderful.
And a fool and his money are soon parted anyway.
And that's all any real American needs to know about the inspiration behind this article.
And a fool and his money are soon parted anyway.
I applaud your patriotism and bravado, but I fail to see how your comments in either response address the coming problem. World wide problems of famine, disease, economic disarray, etc in the non-westen nations that will result from their population growth, combined with declining population in the developed world will lead to smaller markets, economic decline, long term recession rather than growth, and an ever increasing hate from the 'have-nots' over the dwindling resources of the 'haves' (thus an increased threat of continued terrorism).
From a national security point of view, this is not the future I wish for my children, and no amount of chest pounding and flag waving is going to correct it. The action to correct it is debatable, but the long term problems are staring us in the face.
Ah, so that's it!
I thought we were debating whether massive population growth from immigration is good or bad for us.
Now I see that you were really pushing your belief that it is noble for us to suffer so that immigrants might improve their lot.
Case settled: Immgration is good for immigrants--but not so good for existing Americans.
. . . will also cure their population growth.
I did not offer any solution. I stated the current trend. I am simply stating that the problem stated in the article is more than just UN propaganda. It is a real problem for the long term future of western cultured people.
If I were to offer a solution, it would be Anglo-Families here and in Europe start having 2.5 vs 1.2 kid families, expect that there will be a segment of society that must perform the low wage jobs while all compete for the high wage jobs, and only allow immigration where it serves our best interest. But neither my wish nor your rant is going change the family decline trend in the US. Its going to take a return to traditional family values, an attitude change where mothers stay at home and raise more kids rather than work for more material things and raise fewer kids via daycare, and overall it might mean we all cant drive BMWs.
Now if you still have a problem with my solution, feel free to open fire. But while Ive now stated my preferred answer, I also realize that it will take decades to reverse the current trends, if they do change at all, and in the meantime, we have to maintain our economic power if we are to continue to be the only world power with both the moral authority and the economic/military capability to keep the globe from becoming one big unstable mess.