In 1968 Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his
wife (typically, she wasn't credited) published “The Population Bomb”,
which quickly became a best-seller among the green crowd. It predicted that
population explosion would produce massive famine in places like India and
China by the 1970s or 1980s. It wasn’t the only book making such predictions,
but it became the central book for the green fad of those times. In fact of
course the so-called “green revolution” of the 1970s massively increased the
food supply in underdeveloped countries, and both India and China have better
fed populations now than they did in the 1960s, even though they have much
larger populations.
Far from facing an exploding population, the
world today faces a “de-population bomb” in which many countries are
depopulating themselves, producing too few children to maintain their
population levels. It takes about 2.1 births per couple to hold population steady.
It’s slightly more than 2 because a small proportion of babies grow up infertile,
or die before reaching reproductive age, or for some other reason fail to
produce progeny.
But what is actually happening is that as
nations educate their women, and as families become more secular, women start
having less children. And this change is happening at an astounding rate in
some countries. In Iran, for example, the fertility rate in 1960 was above 6
children per family. In 1990 it was still about 5 children per family. But
today it is 1.68 births per couple.
This problem afflicts many major nations,
like Russia (1.75 births per family as
of 2016), Japan (1.46), Germany (1.50), France (1.96), the UK (1.80), and in
fact the whole European Union (1.58 average across the EU). Within a generation
these nations will be substantially smaller than they are now, and this has
serious social implications. For example, at the present fertility rate Japan
will have about half the population in 2100 it has now, and more than a third
of those will be over 65 in age. The situation will be roughly similar in
Russia and within the EU if fertility rates remain low.
Nations with low birth rates will grow
increasingly aged populations, with more aged retirees and fewer young workers
to support them and contribute taxes, which will eventually cause chaos with
whatever public safety nets they have in place. Nations with low birth rates
will reach the point where there are not enough young to defend the national
borders. And for cultures which have no
social programs to supporting the aged, and depend on children to support their
own aged parents, this will be disaster.
America thus far has maintained a stable
fertility rate with more births than deaths, and so far does not face the same
fate. Our fertility rate as of 2017 is slightly below replacement at 1.84, but
immigration is keeping the total population relatively stable. There is concern, though, that the Millennial
generation may drive the rates lower. In America the younger age groups show
the most precipitous decline in fertility rates. It costs on average about
$250,000 to raise a child to age 17, not counting college, and many young
couples today are choosing to put their money toward other things, like expensive
homes or exotic vacations.
Secular liberals ought to note that cultures
and groups that retain traditional religious beliefs (of any sort – Christian,
Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc) as they modernize are not declining – they are
still increasing. So demographics do not favor secular liberals in the long
term; they will increasingly be outnumbered by religious believers. This is
true throughout the world. The reason areas like the EU are in trouble and
America is not (so far!) is that America has a much larger proportion of
religiously-inclined than the EU.
I mentioned in a post a week or so ago that
we faced a tsunami of major problems, even while the press keeps us distracted
with relatively trivial near-term issues and trivia. This is one of the major
problems that comprise that tsunami.
Posts
