Why is the population decreasing so much in some countries?

[kompaz]

Originally Posted by JimG

It's far from a sure thing that depopulation can be reversed, that fertility rates can be increased, or that demographic winter can be avoided. I recommend watching the movie for a least a summary of the problem. Even if demographic winter is avoided, the falling fertility rates portend decades of no growth economies and falling prosperity.

A much more interesting question is if depopulation should be reversed. As far as ecosystem stress and resource exhaution are concerned, depopulation is a good thing.

Paradoxically, depopulation should be causing an increase in prosperity. Think about it in this way. If there is a fixed amount of resources, then decreasing the number of persons to share these makes the amount of resources available per person go up.

The main reason depopulation is a problem is that the world currently uses an economic system which is based on credit. Since credit needs to be repaid with interest, the system requires a perpetual growth to support itself. Once the growth stops, the debts cannot be repaid, and the system crashes.

This is particularly apparent in social security systems. A social security system is a Ponzi scheme where a future generation finances a current generation. The system can operate only as long as a tax base increases -- i.e. as long as each new generation is more numerous than the previous one, or there are productivity improvements increasing GDP (i.e. tax revenue) in a manner which offsets population decrease.
However, I'm dubious if such productivity improvements will happen, because the West has been busy dismantling its education system and cutting R&D spending for the last several decades.

[Catya]

No matter if families use contraceptives or NFP, having multiple children puts a strain on today's families. Face it, most of us are full time wage slaves who endure lengthy commutes and go home to second shift of housework and meal preparation.

Now that we're attempting to grow our own food and have a larger property, I can see how having a few extra kids would be an asset to folks of other generations who lived off the land.

[kompaz]

Originally Posted by JaKael02

1960’s – 6% of white babies were born out of wedlock; 22% of black babies were born out of wedlock (1960’s)
1990’s – 22% of white babies were born out of wedlock; 68% of black babies are born out of wedlock (1992)

That (in the US) probably has to do with the fact that a black man has statistically much higher chances of being imprisoned than a white man, producing a lot of broken black families. That same factor (probably) contributes to higher abortion rates among blacks.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...w-war-on-drugs

[kompaz]

Originally Posted by Catya

No matter if families use contraceptives or NFP, having multiple children puts a strain on today's families. Face it, most of us are full time wage slaves who endure lengthy commutes and go home to second shift of housework and meal preparation.

Now that we're attempting to grow our own food and have a larger property, I can see how having a few extra kids would be an asset to folks of other generations who lived off the land.

Exactly.

The Western economic system is currently set up in a way which makes children a liability, not an asset.

Nothing strange that people do not want to have children...

[manualman]

Originally Posted by kompaz

A much more interesting question is if depopulation should be reversed. As far as ecosystem stress and resource exhaution are concerned, depopulation is a good thing.

Paradoxically, depopulation should be causing an increase in prosperity. Think about it in this way. If there is a fixed amount of resources, then decreasing the number of persons to share these makes the amount of resources available per person go up.
...

Look deeper into this and examine carefully whether it is a noble or self-serving sentiment. Is resource over-use REALLY about over-population or is it that the very rich are stupendously wasteful?

When we establish a long pattern of population decline, is it more or less likely that each working generation will expend efforts to develop sustainable approaches to resource use or will the burden of less young people supporting more eldery lead to default selection of the cheapest and easiest short term solution? Noticed what's happened to solar and wind power support around here lately? That's just a couple year downturn. Imagine a decades long trend....

[kompaz]

Originally Posted by manualman

When we establish a long pattern of population decline, is it more or less likely that each working generation will expend efforts to develop sustainable approaches to resource use

We would establish such pattern if external conditions were stable. But we won't.

For the last 40 years, the global economy has been tracking predictions from Limits to Growth, a.k.a Club of Rome. (In fact, the match is so good, that I am amazed, given how primitive their model was...) This model predicts a crash around 2040 due to resource depletion. Once that happens, all bets are off.

It is a common error to consider the demographic winter as a problem by itself. In reality, we are dealing with a combination of demographic winter, resource depletion (peak oil) and global warming. Trying to solve any of these problems makes the others worse:

- increase fertility rate -> will accelerate oil depletion and global warming

- use non-conventional oil sources -> global warming will accelerate, agricultural production will drop, population decline due to famine

- reduce CO2 production to stop global warming -> energy prices up, food prices up, less incentive to have children

[JimG]

Depopulation can be seen in what happened to many towns which were once thriving. They lost population, now they are stagnant or they are ghost towns.

When it comes to resources, human beings are the ultimate resource. Only human beings can increase natural resources and increase the productivity of labor through innovation. No doubt when humans lived in a hunter-gatherer type of civilization they too thought they were running out of resources—until farming was invented. We increase resources through human effort and invention.

Depopulation does not lead to prosperity. It leads to economic decline and extinction. The European economies can never recover as long as they have a declining population.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

How is the one-child policy in China related to the low atheist birth rates in the West?

Here is an article about the Chinese policy:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I..._disaster.aspx

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by Nabooru

Populations have risen and fallen throughout history. Think of the Black Death and World Wars. Each time the population adapted. As I said before the only major problem I have with the current European population is the non-stop pouring on of Muslim immigrants. They threaten to take over the continent and replace freedom with sharia. Try to be a single woman or couple without children then. But Europeans are too politically correct to staunch the flow, so to speak, so they keep letting them come in even as these Muslims march in the streets to oppose their democratic governments and rape their female citizens for staying out at night. Whether or not they start having lots of kids on their own again, the Islamist immigration needs to stop ASAP.

Nabooru, I agree with you. Only I would add that the detriment to ethnic population is the influx of any non-ethnic population, Arab/Muslim or not. Many Europeans are getting fed up with multiculturalism, as can be seen by the current rise of nationalism in certain countries.

[JimG]

"The mass killing of born and unborn baby girls in China has created a shortage of brides in that country. So there is now what can be called “bride trafficking,” both within China and between China and its near neighbors like Vietnam and North Korea. Young girls in North Korea, a desperately poor country on the brink of starvation, are often sold by their own parents to a bride trafficker, who in turn sells the girls to the highest bidder as a wife. This is just one of the many social pathologies that the one-child policy has given rise to, and which the Chinese people will suffer the consequences of for decades to come."

From a Steven Mosher interview here:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...l_problem.aspx

[interestedman]

Why is it so bad for a country's population to be decreasing? I don't really understand why this is a bad thing? If every country in the world had increasing populations at some point there would be more people in the world than could be supported.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by interestedman

Why is it so bad for a country's population to be decreasing? I don't really understand why this is a bad thing? If every country in the world had increasing populations at some point there would be more people in the world than could be supported.

I read somewhere that a fertility rate around 1.9 is acceptable because the country is able to handle the more gradual decrease in population, while the same around 1.3 is problematic because the nation is unable to cope with the rapid drop in population.

Maybe another poster has more info on this.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by interestedman

Why is it so bad for a country's population to be decreasing? I don't really understand why this is a bad thing? If every country in the world had increasing populations at some point there would be more people in the world than could be supported.

A persistent fertility rate that is below replacement level means that a society will not reproduce itself. It will decline and become economically unsustainable. Japan is the first example of a persistent declining fertility rate leading to economic stagnation and an aging population. European nations are now following suit. You might start with this movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Also see the links I posted above from Catholic World Report on underpopulation.

[RobbyS]

Originally Posted by Holly3278

Hi everyone. Why is the population decreasing so much in some countries? I think I read that in France or maybe it was somewhere else, the population rate is below the replacement level which basically means that the only way to keep the population numbers from decreasing over time is to allow more and more people to immigrate to the country.

So, what is the cause of the population rate in some countries going below the replacement level? Is it because of contraception, sterilization, or abortion or is it something else?

I have heard of another theory. Even in the absence of contraceptives, women have the ability not to have babies. The desire/lack of desire to have a baby will alter her fertility. Just as a man may “will”himself impotent, so too a woman. In this day and age, both men and women look upon children as more a curse than a blessing.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by RobbyS

In this day and age, both men and women look upon children as more a curse than a blessing.

Indeed.