Our President is worried about global warming, an arena where our “top scientists” have failed to make a single accurate prediction in 40 years. But demography is not a prediction. The outcomes of birthrates are as easily calculable as 2 + 2 = 4.
The required birthrate to maintain population stability is 2.1 births per female inhabitant of a nation. If a “husband” and “wife” have two children to replace them when they die the population remains stale. The 0.1 is added because not all children live long enough to reproduce. If the birthrate declines to 1 child per woman, then in a single generation one ends up with half the population of the previous generation. “Generation” is n0t a specific term like “century” is. Generally, it is said to be 25 years (average length of time from the birth of a parent to the birth of their child) to 70 years (approximate age at death). A Biblical generation is 51 years. You may take your pick, but when the “generation” ends there will be only half as many people around if the birthrate per woman falls to 1.0.
Pundits say, “The USA is OK because our birthrate is 2.07.” We are hovering at a replacement rate. That is no longer true. The current US fertility rate is 1.86 children. That remains below the 2.1 children needed to keep the U.S. population stable, not counting immigration.
However, the point is not that humans will disappear from the Earth, but that the humans that remain will create a very different world than that in which we currently live. I, for one, do not believe that this is necessarily a “bad thing.”
Your friendly Central Intelligence Agency tracks these numbers very carefully. That fact alone should give one pause. If we look at the the current world fertility rates it is abundantly clear that Africans and the Middle Easterners will overtake the world population. With only one or two exceptions, the top fifty national birthrates are in these nations.
So, Big Whoop, say you. I do not necessarily disagree, respond I. People are people and Africans and Muslims will inherit the Earth. My concern is not who the people are, but that they inherit the Earth by having babies, not by way of great accomplishment. Perhaps that will change as well.
As an Italian American it saddens me to see that Italy has a birthrate of 1.43. By 2050, Italy’s population will have fallen by 22%. There may be an “Italy” on the map when my grandchildren’s children visit Rome, but there will be very few “Italians” living there – at least not the same kind of Italians. Saint Peter’s Basilica may have already gone the way of Saint Sophia’s Basilica in Istanbul – not a lot of masses celebrated in Saint Sophia.
When I visited Singapore I was very impressed with their City State. You may be impressed, as well. But with the lowest fertility rate in the world (0.81), the island will not have many Singaporeans in a few decades.
In essence the experiment is over in Europe. We now only need to await the results (see Footnote). It simply is impossible for our “scientists” or “politicians” to say, “Have more babies!” The problem is remarkably challenging for “advanced” societies – especially those with things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc. If only a million babies are born in 2016, it’s hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2036 (or 2043, or 2047 or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Gender Studies degrees in those “safe spaces” we call universities these days). Just ask Bernie. Who will unfairly earn those billions of dollars that Bernie needs so that he can “redistribute” them.
My friends, the above computation is both informative and, for all intents and purposes, irrevocable. Protect yourself. Become a Rugged Individualist like me. It your only hope.
And thanks to PCoop for sending some of this information to me.
Mark Steyn’s take on some of this:
The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion.
That didn’t work out too great for the Shakers, but the Europeans figured it would be a piece of cake for them: “westernization” is so seductive, so appealing that, … their young Muslims would fall for the siren song of secular progressivism just like they themselves had. So, as long as you kept the immigrants coming, there would be no problem…
To avoid collapse, European nations will need to take in immigrants at a rate no stable society has ever attempted.