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

Skip to comments.

UN WARNS OF UNDERPOPULATION WOES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
LifeSite ^ | August 20, 2002 | LifeSite

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://216.122.249.80/waronfamily/nssm200/index.html

See the NYT coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/science/earth/20ECON.html


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
http://www.lifesite.net/interim/july98/20nssm.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.

Security interests

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).

World-wide propaganda

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."

Imperialist motivation

"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.

1 posted on 08/20/2002 6:58:02 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: patent; Siobhan; sitetest; JMJ333; narses; Catholicguy; *Catholic_list; Notwithstanding; ...
pop-con ping
2 posted on 08/20/2002 6:59:24 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

They're getting worried about exactly WHO is going to pay the bills, eh?

3 posted on 08/20/2002 6:59:47 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
In other words, there will not be enough taxpayers to glut for the UN pets?
4 posted on 08/20/2002 7:00:51 PM PDT by Selara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I thought these were the same people who just a few years ago were screaming about over population! We were crowding the planet according to them!
5 posted on 08/20/2002 7:02:37 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Selara
to glut for the UN pets

Add a war into the equation, with its necessary privation, and you get what they're worried about. Euthanasia.

6 posted on 08/20/2002 7:02:38 PM PDT by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
Another UN mess ping.
7 posted on 08/20/2002 7:02:44 PM PDT by Selara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I seem to remember the UN warning us about "overpopulation" some decades ago. Oh well, that must have gone down the memory hole. I guess we've always bee at war with East Asia...
8 posted on 08/20/2002 7:03:43 PM PDT by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I think this is known as the law of unintended consequences. I read somewhere a while ago that Germany is actually paying women to have children now.
9 posted on 08/20/2002 7:03:57 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I would be willing go to these countries and help them recover, but usually they only have unattractive women.
10 posted on 08/20/2002 7:05:36 PM PDT by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Abortion + radical feminism = declining births = illegal immigration.

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.

11 posted on 08/20/2002 7:16:01 PM PDT by HumanaeVitae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Middle classes are also declining for other reasons not just lower birth rates. Too many indigent people have high birth rates but aren't becoming middle class for various reasons. We need the middle class to grow.
12 posted on 08/20/2002 7:22:45 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I've read that the fertility rate is at 1.7 per woman in developed countries and 6 children per woman in Muslim countries. Isn't that surprising that it's so much higher?
13 posted on 08/20/2002 7:34:18 PM PDT by patriot5186
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.

Warnings?

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.

14 posted on 08/20/2002 8:12:41 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I thought the UN was the same group that not-so long ago were on a soap box proclaiming a global overpopulation problem.....

Did I miss something? The global population is still rising.
15 posted on 08/20/2002 8:28:29 PM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Oh, there's a UN-overpopulation thread that started yesterday. (They're simply revising their predictions of doom to a few years later.) The interesting thing about this thread is that they are decrying overpopulations THERE, and underpopulations HERE... making it VERY clear that they will be in the population redistribution business just as soon as they can get away with it.
16 posted on 08/20/2002 9:02:12 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Low birth rate in developed countries is good news as far as I'm concerned.

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.

17 posted on 08/20/2002 9:18:01 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
I read somewhere a while ago that Germany is actually paying women to have children now.

So are we, I'm sad to say. So are we.

18 posted on 08/20/2002 9:19:01 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
The U.S. hardly has any "underpopulation" problem - not when it has so many downsized people lacking jobs at any given time.

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.

19 posted on 08/20/2002 9:29:32 PM PDT by glc1173@aol.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Did I miss something? The global population is still rising.

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.

20 posted on 08/20/2002 10:33:13 PM PDT by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: glc1173@aol.com
Although I agree immigration should be controlled, I would like to see more upper and middle class families having more children. France and Germany have attempted to pay native women subsidies to bring their populations up to replacement level with little success.

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.

21 posted on 08/20/2002 10:35:45 PM PDT by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Amazing, amazing. They have been telling the whole world that their is an over-population problem. Now this.

Oh, well, what's new about the UN speaking out of both sides of its mouth?

22 posted on 08/20/2002 11:30:53 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Selara
I bet there is a hidden agenda behind this one. I think there will be a report next where it's said that developed countries should take in a lot of immigrants from under-developed countries to stop this decline.
23 posted on 08/21/2002 3:10:35 AM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: patriot5186
No... women in Islamic countries have more kids because:

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. ;-)

24 posted on 08/21/2002 4:18:00 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
BINGO. That's what they have been saying. I think there was even talk of penalizing the US for not taking our 'share.' I come from the school of thought that it is better to help make people in other countries wealthier by exporting freedom - then their populations will decline as people start enjoying more of life, and fewer people will be so desperate that they have to flee their homelands. It is a slow process, made slower still by people promoting poverty via marx and distrust of freedom, unfortunately.
25 posted on 08/21/2002 4:28:15 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
hidden? this is exactly what they want and they say it out loud all the time. also see the comments from most economists: white countries must surrender to hordes of non-whites or their economy might not be so good. oh the horror!
26 posted on 08/21/2002 6:13:45 AM PDT by jody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
It's not just third world immigration that will harm us--immigration of any kind at today's massive rates spells disaster for our freedoms.

The more immigrants you have, the more government you get.

The more immigrants you have, the more you're forced to share.

The more immigrants you have, the harder you have to work.

The more immigrants you have, the fewer resources you have.

The more immigrants you have, the more laws and regulation you'll have.

The more immigrants you have, the less your vote means.

The more immigrants you have, the less freedom you have.

But the powers that be aren't concerned: They'll be living behind the walls of their country estates drinking Perrier with the money we peons pay them to recycle toilet water for us to drink.
27 posted on 08/21/2002 7:28:43 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
If you want to see the UN's scenario played out LIVE, look at the economic situation in Japan.

No children consuming; most everyone is heading for retirement, thus saving---no consumption there, either.

Nikkei index down more than 50% (maybe more) in last 10 years, unable to resurrect itself.

28 posted on 08/21/2002 7:47:41 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
France IS paying for motherhood. Dunno about Germany. England is at least considering additional tax benefits for mothers.
29 posted on 08/21/2002 7:48:58 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
I can name one REALLY GOOD reason for the inability of large families to assume middle class status: tax penalties for having children.

Extrapolate the 1955 'child exemption' to today and the number should be around $7,500. rather than $2,300. We could go on....for example, the sales tax in most states has not only risen but applies to a broad spectrum of goods--lots of which are purchased for raising children.
30 posted on 08/21/2002 7:52:24 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Well duh! Are these people stupid or what? Can't have a high birth rate--that'll cause overpopulation. Can't have a low birth rate--that'll mess up our welfare systems. I guess we'll just have to keep the status quo exactly from now on.

This is what you get when you have former communists in charge of the United Nations. They think they can control everything. May they be proven wrong AGAIN in very short order.
31 posted on 08/21/2002 10:33:07 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Low birth rate in developed countries is good news as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me, oh reasonable one, with a 0% population growth, would our economy continue to grow?
32 posted on 08/21/2002 10:38:42 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
"UN WARNS OF UNDERPOPULATION WOES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES"

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?

33 posted on 08/21/2002 10:44:55 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Some quotes from Teddy Roosevelt on the subject:

On motherhood as the true source of progress:

"A more supreme instance of unselfishness than is afforded by motherhood cannot be imagined."

Before an audience of liberal Christian theologians in 1911, he said:

"If you do not believe in your own stock enough to see the stock kept up, then you are not good Americans, you are not patriots, and ... I for one shall not mourn your extinction; and in such event I shall welcome the advent of a new race that will take your place, because you wil have shown that you are not fit to cumber the ground."

On the centrality of the child-rich family to the very existence of the American nation:

"It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders."

On parenthood:

"No other success in life, not being President, or being wealthy, or going to college, or anything else, comes up to the success of the man and woman who can feel that they have done their duty and that their children and grandchildren rise up to call them blessed."

On out-of-wedlock birth versus practiced sterility:

"After all, such a vice may be compatible with a nation's continuing to live, and while there is life, even a life marred by wrong practices, there is a chance of reform.

In another place, on the same subject:

"...[W]hile there is life, there is hope, whereas nothing can be done with the dead."

On the behavior of 90% of those who practice birth control:

"[It is derived] from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant."

On the "pitiable" child-rearing record of graduates of women's colleges like Vassar and Smith who bore only 0.86 of a child each during their lifetimes:

"Do these colleges teach 'domestic science'?... There is something radically wrong with the home training and school training that produces such results."
34 posted on 08/21/2002 10:46:21 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
Did I miss something? The global population is still rising.

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. :)

35 posted on 08/21/2002 10:52:00 AM PDT by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Tell me, oh reasonable one, with a 0% population growth, would our economy continue to grow?

Prosperity is more important than the economy.

36 posted on 08/21/2002 10:57:42 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Some quotes from Teddy Roosevelt on the subject:

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.

37 posted on 08/21/2002 11:18:36 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
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.

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.

38 posted on 08/21/2002 11:39:04 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
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.

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.

39 posted on 08/21/2002 12:37:23 PM PDT by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"I can name one REALLY GOOD reason for the inability of large families to assume middle class status: tax penalties for having children."

"Extrapolate the 1955 'child exemption' to today and the number should be around $7,500. rather than $2,300."

So it's a "penalty" that the child exemption has gone down, adjusting for inflation?

There shouldn't be any child exemption at all.

"We could go on....for example, the sales tax in most states has not only risen but applies to a broad spectrum of goods--lots of which are purchased for raising children."

There's an easy solution here...only the rich should have children. The poor shouldn't have children, unless the parents are willing to make extraordinary financial sacrifices to raise the children to adulthood.
40 posted on 08/21/2002 3:08:45 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
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.

Perhaps you could just move to New Hampshire and make your personal motto: Die, so I can live "free".
41 posted on 08/21/2002 8:29:27 PM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
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.

A Cassandra.

42 posted on 08/21/2002 9:57:13 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Perhaps you could just move to New Hampshire

New Hampshire will soon be filling up with the wealthy--those same wealthy who paid for the propaganda that convinced you immigration is wonderful.

43 posted on 08/21/2002 10:12:19 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
Only a fool takes risks.

And a fool and his money are soon parted anyway.

44 posted on 08/21/2002 10:22:55 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
... making it VERY clear that they will be in the population redistribution business just as soon as they can get away with it.

And that's all any real American needs to know about the inspiration behind this article.

45 posted on 08/21/2002 10:28:29 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
I feel like Churchill warning about the rise of Nazism in the 1930's.

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.

46 posted on 08/22/2002 7:48:02 AM PDT by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
Your solution is a kid of appeasement--and we've seen where that gets us.

It's a downward spiral, and giving away our country and resources and freedom one piece at a time only postpones the inevitable.

For example, decades of massive immigration did not prevent 911.

The more crowded we become, the fatter the target for weapons of mass destruction we present (without a mass to work its evil upon, a weapon of mass destruction is not a weapon of mass destruction).

The more crowded we become, the more technology must be developed to stretch diminishing resources.

The more we push technology, the more dangerous that technology becomes in the hands of terrorists.

The more people, the greater our dependence on technology--and the greater our dependence on technology, the more vulnerable to terrorism we become.

Since the end of hunter-gathering and the forced move to the technology of agriculture, the most vicious wars have had one thing in common: the vicious circle of populaton growth leading to shortages leading to more technology leading to more population growth.

And territory--space--is almost always at the heart of all such shortages.
47 posted on 08/22/2002 10:45:51 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Perhaps you could just move to New Hampshire and make your personal motto: Die, so I can live "free".

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.

48 posted on 08/22/2002 11:00:53 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
problems of famine, disease, economic disarray, etc in the non-westen nations that will result from their population growth . . .

. . . will also cure their population growth.

49 posted on 08/22/2002 11:04:38 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Your solution is a kid of appeasement--and we've seen where that gets us.

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.

50 posted on 08/22/2002 12:26:02 PM PDT by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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