← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 18230 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-05-13
2005-05-13 16:48 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=28493]Catholic Exchange[/URL] Death's Wages: Population Disaster 05/13/05
At his press conference April 28, President Bush used some statistics to demonstrate the need for his Social Security reform plan. "There's a lot of us getting ready to retire who will be living longer and receiving greater benefits than the previous generation," he said.
And then he added, "And to compound the problem, there are fewer people paying into the system. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary; soon there will be two workers for every beneficiary. These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy."
Forty years of contraception, abortion, feminism, and two-income or one-parent families have taken their toll. The 105-page Highlights of the United Nations Population Division's World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision outlines the demographic crisis overtaking the world, not just the United States and her collapsing Social Security system.
It's very simple to state: People aren't having enough children to sustain the long-term economic prosperity of the world or most of its individual countries. In many cases, particularly in Western Europe and Japan, they aren't having enough children to ensure the survival of their national cultures ââ¬â perhaps not even their nations ââ¬â into the next century. Pension and health care systems will just be the first things to break down.
Experts have been predicting dire consequences of world "overpopulation" for two centuries now, and they have never come true. Now, after decades of population control, family planning, feminism, and anti-family economic realignment, rapidly declining fertility levels will inevitably produce demographic disaster due to the opposite problem.
UNPD has revised its prediction for the world's population in 2050 down to 9.1 billion from the 9.3 billion by 2050 it predicted in its 2000 revision. The world will hit 6.5 billion some time in July of this year.
UNPD has tended to be candid about the world's coming underpopulation and aging crises in recent years, and indications are that new UNPD Director Hania Zlotnik will continue this high-quality devotion to science. But UNPD does continue to cling to at least one unrealistic assumption. The new medium variant projection counts on fertility rates rising in developed countries even though there is no reason to think that they will. Says the report:
In developed countries as a whole, fertility is currently 1.56 children per woman and is projected to increase slowly to 1.84 children per woman in 2045-2050. In the least developed countries, fertility is 5 children per woman and is expected to drop by about half, to 2.57 children per woman by 2045-2050. In the rest of the developing world, fertility is already moderately low at 2.58 children per woman and is expected to decline further to 1.92 children per woman by mid-century, thus nearly converging to the fertility levels by then typical of the developed world. Replacement rate fertility is 2.1 children per woman in the absence of major wars, famine, and epidemic.
What justification does UNPD have in saying that fertility levels will rise in developed countries? Perhaps the agency believes that large-scale immigration into Western Europe will continue, and that these immigrants will have so many children that they will raise greatly the total fertility rate of the entire developed world. UNPD projects a net migration of about 73 million people into wealthier countries: "Because deaths are projected to exceed births in the more developed regions by 73 million during 2005-2050, population growth in those regions will largely be due to international migration." The immigration projections may be less than some might expect, but remember that fertility rates are dropping fast in the developing world, too ââ¬â and the backlash against large-scale immigration is growing in Western Europe and the United States.
In any case, UNPD doesn't say. It says it just assumes that fertility rates everywhere will converge on the number 1.85: "Total fertility in all countries is assumed to converge eventually toward a level of 1.85 children per woman. However, not all countries reach this level during the projection period, that is, by 2050." It's hard to foresee social changes in developed countries that will lead to such a dramatic turnaround in fertility by 2050.
UNPD predicts that population growth in the developed world has come almost completely to a standstill: "Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today's 5.3 billion population is expected to swell to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion."
Developed countries' combined population will remain stable as immigrants flood in to replace the native populations that are dying off. And dying off they are: "Fertility levels in the 44 developed countries, which account for 19% of the world population, are currently very low. All except Albania have fertility below-replacement level and 15, mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history (below 1.3 children per woman)." Majority Muslim Albania is the only developed country whose people care enough about their future to procreate their descendents.
A few developed countries have seen some fertility rate increases over the past 10-15 years, but not enough to raise them above replacement level. "Since 1990-1995, fertility decline has been the rule among most developed countries," says UNPD. "The few increases recorded, such as those in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and the United States, have been small."
UNPD's low variant projection, which historically is more accurate than the medium variant projection that it holds out as most likely to be right, estimates a world population of only 7.7 billion by 2050, due to an estimated total fertility rate 0.5 child less than the projection used in the medium variant. The developed world will drop to less than 1.1 billion people in that time.
Regardless of what happens in total numbers, dramatic aging of the world's population, particularly in the developed world, will certainly occur. Even taking UNPD's higher medium variant numbers, "The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if combined with increases in life expectancy, is population aging, whereby the share of older persons in a population increases relative to that of younger persons," reports UNPD.
"Globally, the number of persons aged 60 years or over is expected almost to triple, increasing from 672 million in 2005 to nearly 1.9 billion by 2050. Whereas 6 out of every 10 of those older persons live today in developing countries, by 2050, 8 out of every 10 will do so. An even more marked increase is expected in the number of the oldest-old (persons aged 80 years or over): from 86 million in 2005 to 394 million in 2050. In developing countries, the rise will be from 42 million to 278 million, indicating that by 2050 most oldest-old will live in the developing world."
The percentages don't look good, either. "In developed countries, 20% of today's population is aged 60 years or over, and by 2050 that proportion is projected to be 32%," says UNPD. "The elderly population in developed countries has already surpassed the number of children (persons aged 0-14), and by 2050 there will be two elderly persons for every child. In the developing world, the proportion of the population aged 60 or over is expected to rise from 8% in 2005 to close to 20% by 2050."
Where will the money to support all these elderly people come from? Who will pay the rapidly rising health care costs, for example? The problem in the United States, which is much better off fiscally than almost any other nation due to its relatively high fertility rate and excellent economy, is only a fraction of that faced by other nations. Mass euthanasia of the old and all those unable to work ââ¬â "useless eaters," in the Nazis' phrase ââ¬â could become the world norm.
The wages of birth control, abortion, and feminism are death.
Joseph A. Dââ¬â¢Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the Population Research Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to debunking the myth that the world is overpopulated.
2005-05-13 20:33 | User Profile
The principal existential crisis that Western countries confront is not of their low rates of fertility, though they certainly exacerbate it. The crisis is the presence of racially unassimilable foreigners in these countries. It's an objective fact that human populations which cohabit together will, over time, blend uniformly. Europeans will cease to be distinctly European long before this stabilization takes place, however. The repatriation of or geographic separation from such foreigners, then, is certainly foremost in importance in preserving European countries. (Likely the former is true for European countries and the latter true for the United States.)
Declining rates of fertility quite simply means fewer people. I wholly disbelieve that whites will disappear directly because they have few children. Ethnic Germans would still exist even if Germany were populated by 20 million fewer ethnic Germans. Ethnic whites in the United States would still exist even if it were populated by 60 million fewer whites. No ethnic Europeans, however, can continue to exist long under the multiracial conditions of their countries.
I expect that the rates of fertility among Europeans will actually begin to incline. It seems that this may already be taking place. Admittedly, my evidence is anecdotal, but, among the many young ethnic Norwegians whom I know, probably a majority have very large families. Most have certainly at least two siblings, and, often, they have so many as seven (or sometimes even more). I doubt that the motivation is religious; it just seems that their parents enjoy their large families. But this is irrelevant in matters of national (and indeed racial) preservation if the conditions required for whites to survive are absent in their countries. An overwhelming majority of white Americans, for example, would be necessary to fully racially assimilate the population of non-whites already present in their country. There isn't an overwhelming majority of whites within the United States, and there probably never has been a sufficiently large population of whites for this.
Because of the political climate in most Western countries, it's difficult to address even these low rates of fertility among natives and their future effects. A political solution designed to increase the rates of fertility among whites would also be a completely inadequate measure to prevent national and racial dissolution.
The question is whether whites are actually indifferent to this. If they SINCERELY are, then there will never be a political solution to right circumstances within Western countries, and Europeans are doomed to extinction. But I very much doubt that, for example, most white Americans would apathetically dismiss the fact that their extinction is a certainty IF that fact were delivered to them in explicit terms. Most don't respond to appeals to "white pride" or even to clamoring for preservation of "white culture." Most do, quite instinctively, poignantly understand the concept of racial dissolution if it's delivered directly.
Personally, I believe that there are many who work against whites and hope to destroy them, though they dissemble their arguments with disguises of benign and benevolent universalism and sophistry. This veil of deceit can be rent away, exposing the true intention by making the argument explicitly racial. Who could effectively argue against racial preservation of whites? Surely, other ethnic groups demand this and quite legitimately. Why, then, should whites be denied this? The persistence of our enemies against white racial preservation would expose them outright. It would be made clear for everyone that the goal is nothing less than the annihilation of Europeans and that this is exactly what whites face.
2005-05-13 22:29 | User Profile
Population is a problem. There are too many people. For example: If there were 1 million+ people in India, instead of 1 billion+ people, they could feed themselves and stay home for their jobs. The problem for White Americans, is the ratio of population to others. Everyone needs to have less children. But not through cruel methods, for control.
2005-05-14 02:37 | User Profile
Don't worry Brite pretty soon there will be between 4 and 4.5 billions less people on planet Earth.
2005-05-14 10:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Knekkeben]The principal existential crisis that Western countries confront is not of their low rates of fertility, though they certainly exacerbate it. The crisis is the presence of racially unassimilable foreigners in these countries. It's an objective fact that human populations which cohabit together will, over time, blend uniformly. Europeans will cease to be distinctly European long before this stabilization takes place, however. The repatriation of or geographic separation from such foreigners, then, is certainly foremost in importance in preserving European countries. (Likely the former is true for European countries and the latter true for the United States.).[/QUOTE]
You appear to assume that low white birthrate and massive brown immigration are unrelated phenomena. Such is not the case, for the simple reason that, as the article points out, population growth and economic growth are intricately connected.
Economies have lives of their own. Economies want to grow, and they'll create huge pressures for working hands. This is simply a fact.
The low white birthrate these past 40 years created an enormous economic vaccum that will be filled one way or the other. There simply aren't enough white babies to feed the monster's maw, and the beast must be fed.
Having more white babies not only increases our absolute numbers, it fills the very economic vacuum that is sucking in the dregs of the third world.
2005-05-16 05:17 | User Profile
The meek -- who don't play God or purposefully exclude him from their marriage bed -- will inherit the earth.
2005-05-16 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You appear to assume that low white birthrate and massive brown immigration are unrelated phenomena. Such is not the case, for the simple reason that, as the article points out, population growth and economic growth are intricately connected.[/QUOTE] I agree, but consider Greece. Greece has a rate of unemployment of nearly and possibly over 10 percent, but Albanians and Middle Easterners are gushing into the country. Why? They do for exactly the same reason that Mexicans and other Middle American Third Worlders gush into the States: inexpensive labor. In fact, such (illegal) immigration into Greece is promoted with exactly the same language that immigration is promoted into the United States.
Do you really believe that the outrageous number of Hispanic illegal immigrants are present here because of a dearth of workers? What about foreign computer-programmers? This is what's claimed, but the real motivation is simply lesser expense for employers when native workers abound.
You're correct that stable rates of fertility among Westerners are necessary for the welfare of their countries, but it's wrong to regard an incline in this as a panacea to the troubles of Western countries. The problem is that, even if their rates of fertility begin to incline, there are still foreign populations within these countries that simply cannot be assimilated without destroying their native populations.
I don't doubt at all that immigration will soon be greatly reduced in European countries and maybe even the United States. But this is of little consequence for the fates of the native populations in those countries, such as the United States, Holland, England or France, where there exist overwhelming numbers of unassimilable foreigners.
2005-05-16 18:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Knekkeben]I agree, but consider Greece. Greece has a rate of unemployment of nearly and possibly over 10 percent, but Albanians and Middle Easterners are gushing into the country. Why? They do for exactly the same reason that Mexicans and other Middle American Third Worlders gush into the States: inexpensive labor. In fact, such (illegal) immigration into Greece is promoted with exactly the same language that immigration is promoted into the United States.
Do you really believe that the outrageous number of Hispanic illegal immigrants are present here because of a dearth of workers? What about foreign computer-programmers? This is what's claimed, but the real motivation is simply lesser expense for employers when native workers abound.
You're correct that stable rates of fertility among Westerners are necessary for the welfare of their countries, but it's wrong to regard an incline in this as a panacea to the troubles of Western countries. The problem is that, even if their rates of fertility begin to incline, there are still foreign populations within these countries that simply cannot be assimilated without destroying their native populations.
I don't doubt at all that immigration will soon be greatly reduced in European countries and maybe even the United States. But this is of little consequence for the fates of the native populations in those countries, such as the United States, Holland, England or France, where there exist overwhelming numbers of unassimilable foreigners.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that economic growth is connected to population growth. One economist I read not too long ago wrote that "in order to have high per capita income, you first have to have some capita." A growing population with a healthy supply of young people coming on line is essential to keeping the machine accelerating.
The thing about the populations of Europe is that the median age is increasing. But older populations don't consume as much, and they consume more deadend stuff. Young populations stimulate the economy a lot more because they consume stuff that goes into their labor making more stuff, plus taking care of their kids.
It's not that the populations are too small per se, but rather that they're too old.
Albania is a young country, younger than Greece. Greece didn't have enough young people to keep the economy acclerating. The Albanians did. Hence young Albanians go to Greece.
Actually, it would be better to say that there's a great deal of economic pressure sucking young Albanians into Greece that can only be stopped by the application of measures the Greeks are reluctant to enforce.
2005-05-20 17:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Don't worry Brite pretty soon there will be between 4 and 4.5 billions less people on planet Earth.[/QUOTE]This could be a good thing, maybe not...............? Do expand.......
2005-05-20 17:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=brite]This could be a good thing, maybe not...............? Do expand.......[/QUOTE]
Well brite when you say "expand" I think that you expect me to talk like some king of proffesor with a million links and evidence that will point to what I said but that wont be so.
I have always guided myself by what I feel when reading "behind" the news and the current world events points to that.
Some times the protection of one (the world) is more important than the protection of the many (world population) and the only way to save the world will be to cut down on population and everything that is happening is pointing towards that.
It has nothing to do with you and I but with the power to be who are manipulating the events behind the curtain.
2005-05-21 17:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]The meek -- who don't play God or purposefully exclude him from their marriage bed -- will inherit the earth.[/QUOTE] I don't do threesomes. "Two shall become one." :heart:
If God shows up in our marriage bed, I'd have to presume the Second Coming would be a few years later. Whoops, can't do that, my dear wife has given me two children already, no virgin birth possible.
Back to point one.