Demographics is destiny.
For some… situations there are no solutions.
James Lee Burke
I know that the topics of the day are “healthcare reform failure/Republican traitors in the Senate/Scaramucci-Priebus/Sessions swinging the breeze/collusion with Russia/North Korean missiles.” However, all of those make me want to upchuck my breakfast and become an anarchist. So let’s look at a completely different scary topic.
What topic is that, ask you? Why male sperm counts, answer I. Really? What possibly could be interesting about male sperm counts, ask you? They’re plummeting, answer I.
Sperm counts of men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand are plunging, according to a new analysis. The above graph is based on data that includes nearly 43,000 males. Numerous variables were considered (fertility status, age, ejaculation abstinence time, semen collection method, sperm count method and geographic location). The sample included 50 different countries. Therefore, it is almost certainly accurate. And this is a mere 40 years. Homo Sapien males have been producing sperm for 200,000 years. We don’t have accurate data over that time span, but…
I am not saying that the graph above and the graph below are directly related, but ultimately they will be directly related. It remains true that it only requires one sperm cell to fertilize an egg and even at the current ejaculate volume and numbers there are still 137 million sperm available.
Nonetheless, among the study sample was a high proportion of men in Western countries with sperm concentrations below 40 million/ml. This is concerning because evidence indicates that a sperm concentration below this threshold is associated with a decreased monthly probability of conception. The cause of this decline is uncertain, although you can be confident that the environmental alarmist crowd will blame “climate change.”
Again, I am not suggesting that sperm count decline is the reason for declining total fertility rates, but when it inevitably becomes a factor it’s “Katie bar the door.”
[Source: The Coming Demographic Crisis, by Bruce Thornton, Research Fellow, Hoover Institute]
- Each women must average a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 children for populations to remain stable.
- In the developed world, and even in the developing world, fertility is below the 2.1 mark, meaning that populations are declining.
- Nations that have a TFR of 1.4, predicts that their populations will decline by 50 percent in 45 years.
- The European Union has an average TFR of 1.5.
- Fertility rates are also dropping in developing regions like Latin America, where the average fertility rate fell from six children in the 1960s to 2.5 children by 2005.
- Compared to Europe, the United States’ 2.0 TFR looks good; however, the number is largely dependent on the fertility rate of Hispanic women, which is 2.35.
- If Hispanic fertility rates drop in the United States as expected, the U.S. TFR would drop substantially (and, generally speaking, the TFR declines generationally in Hispanic immigrants – RF).
The “low fertility trap” hypothesis was pioneered by demographer Dr. Wolfgang Lutz of the Vienna Institute of Demography. Proponents note that no society has ever recovered from a sustained birth rate of under 1.5 children per woman.
This is because after a few decades of very low birth rates, very simply, there are no longer enough potential mothers to have enough children to recover, and an irreversible downward spiral begins. Gender based selective fetocide only hastens the end (China, India). Simultaneously, they say, a more subtle cultural shift also occurs: childlessness and small families become the norm, thereby institutionalizing the trend of low birth rates.
From, Global Aging and the Crisis of the 2020s, by Neil Howe and Richard Jackson: “Demographic trends have played a decisive role in many of the great … political upheavals … of history. By the 2020s, an ominous new conjuncture of demographic trends may once again threaten widespread disruption. We are talking about global aging, which is likely to have a profound effect on economic growth, living standards, and the shape of the world order.”
I have written several times that demographics will define the future of socialist/ collectivist thought, and not in a user-friendly way. It appears that the day of reckoning is close upon us. The 2020s are the years during which the culmination of lower birthrates and increased longevity will require that some very difficult choices must be made. In the 2020s the postwar baby boomers retire in force. The median ages of Western Europe and Japan, which were 34 and 33 respectively as recently as 1980, will soar to 47 and 52 by 2030. The working-age population has already begun to contract in several large developed countries, including Germany and Japan. By 2030, it will be stagnant or contracting in nearly all developed countries.
The “age wave” is as unstoppable as a tsunami. The notion of “cradle to grave” government assistance will necessarily come to an end – particularly the “grave” portion of the equation.
My friends, the writing is on the wall. Democrats who say we do not need to change our “entitlement” culture are the political equivalent of screaming at the tsunami to stop! These progressive/altruist notions simply cannot coexist with the realities of demography.