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
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.
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.