|
|
Post by Stephen on Apr 29, 2022 8:45:27 GMT
Demography is destiny is a phrase that has been about for many years.
Two major demographic trends–an ageing population in developed and emerging economies, and high population growth in parts of the developing world will have an enormous impact.
What do people think about this across the world from Ireland to Japan to Nigeria?
|
|
|
|
Post by kj on Apr 29, 2022 10:02:55 GMT
I would say the exploding global population is not good news for anyone. In my lifetime it has doubled, which is astounding when I reflect on it.
More urban sprawl, more wage-slavery, more opportunities for exploitation, more destruction of nature and wildlife. And of course the greater spread of "one-worldism", which means the dilution of national cultures and the differences that make life interesting.
I don't expect this to be a popular view on this forum:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 29, 2022 10:26:58 GMT
Demography is destiny is a phrase that has been about for many years. Two major demographic trends–an ageing population in developed and emerging economies, and high population growth in parts of the developing world will have an enormous impact. What do people think about this across the world from Ireland to Japan to Nigeria? Its a huge topic but two points briefly. The west is heading for a self imposed demographic disaster if present trends continue. We are rapidly aging and dying out particularly in former catholic countries. KJ makes reference to population growth in poorer countries. I believe even there numbers will decline long term. Communist China after decades of extreme population control is now attempting to encourage, so far unsuccessfully , population growth as it too faces demographic decline. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2022 11:01:31 GMT
It seems likely that developing countries will experience the same plateau and decline as developed countries, as they develop. Overpopulation is not something I worry about.
Our own demographic winter seems almost inevitable.
I've tried to help the birth rate myself, but sadly have experienced infertility in my own marriage. Sometimes conservatives make sweeping assumptions about politicians who are childless. It's not always by choice, for one reason or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by kj on Apr 29, 2022 11:34:52 GMT
KJ makes reference to population growth in poorer countries. No, I was referring to the population growth in nearly every country. I am very suspicious of the so-called "demographic crisis", whereby we are facing some sort of "catastrophe". As the numbers show, world population has doubled over the past 40 years. Even countries that the doom-mongers lament have steady or rising populations, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The whole "we need people to look after us in old age" is something of a Ponzi scheme, as those "carers" will in turn need more carers etc etc. And as I said, the exponential population growth as a whole means all those things I referenced: increased capitalist exploitation, competition for ever-diminishing natural resources, ever more dilution of culture and identity and so on. Unfortunately many conservatives of whatever shade or background have a major blindspot when it comes to the detrimental effects of the population explosion, primarily for religious reasons I imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on Apr 29, 2022 12:06:34 GMT
Prof. Edward Dutton had a interesting video about how Fundamentalist Christian wombfare is going to take over what remains of western civilization.
I don't agree with every thing he says but he raised a good question! Will the Religious in the west take over.
Personally and statically people with conservative and strong religious believes have much larger families.
USA Stats
Amish 6.9 children per woman
Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman
Mormons 3.4 children per woman
Muslim 2.9 children per woman
New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman
Atheists 1.6 children per woman
Agnostics 1.3 children per woman
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 29, 2022 12:35:36 GMT
KJ makes reference to population growth in poorer countries. No, I was referring to the population growth in nearly every country. I am very suspicious of the so-called "demographic crisis", whereby we are facing some sort of "catastrophe". As the numbers show, world population has doubled over the past 40 years. Even countries that the doom-mongers lament have steady or rising populations, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The whole "we need people to look after us in old age" is something of a Ponzi scheme, as those "carers" will in turn need more carers etc etc. And as I said, the exponential population growth as a whole means all those things I referenced: increased capitalist exploitation, competition for ever-diminishing natural resources, ever more dilution of culture and identity and so on. Unfortunately many conservatives of whatever shade or background have a major blindspot when it comes to the detrimental effects of the population explosion, primarily for religious reasons I imagine. Having a birth rate that doesn't manage to replace the existing population is a serious long term problem. Allied to this is an increasing amount of people living longer. When the old age pension was originally introduced it was pegged at 70 , an age most people would never live to see. Economists and actuaries are pretty unanimous in predicting a colossal pension crisis in the next few decades in most Western states. Norway is one of the few states with an actual funded pension fund. We blew ours paying out foreign bankers during the financial crash. This has little or nothing to do with religious belief. Although I do also believe the sexual revolution has a tremendous social cost widely ignored by a society which enjoys its sexual freedoms. Religious restrictions , taboos and obligations are in many ways socially beneficial. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Apr 29, 2022 12:47:12 GMT
Having a birth rate that doesn't manage to replace the existing population is a serious long term problem. Allied to this is an increasing amount of people living longer. When the old age pension was originally introduced it was pegged at 70 , an age most people would never live to see. Economists and actuaries are pretty unanimous in predicting a colossal pension crisis in the next few decades in most Western states. Norway is one of the few states with an actual funded pension fund. We blew ours paying out foreign bankers during the financial crash. This has little or nothing to do with religious belief. Although I do also believe the sexual revolution has a tremendous social cost widely ignored by a society which enjoys its sexual freedoms. Religious restrictions , taboos and obligations are in many ways socially beneficial. So what's the answer? Keep churning out people who will in turn need more churned out to look after them and so on? Plus the other points about the detrimental effects of exponential population growth I've raised are ignored. This really is why talking about the topic in conservative circles is largely a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Apr 29, 2022 12:54:26 GMT
Prof. Edward Dutton had a interesting video about how Fundamentalist Christian wombfare is going to take over what remains of western civilization. I don't agree with every thing he says but he raised a good question! Will the Religious in the west take over. Personally and statically people with conservative and strong religious believes have much larger families. USA Stats Amish 6.9 children per woman Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman Mormons 3.4 children per woman Muslim 2.9 children per woman New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman Atheists 1.6 children per woman Agnostics 1.3 children per woman I always have a chuckle when I see "traditionalist" Christians occasionally praise the high fecundity of Muslims while largely bemoaning and wailing what they perceive to be the "Islamic takeover of Europe" or some such the other 95% of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2022 13:10:16 GMT
Prof. Edward Dutton had a interesting video about how Fundamentalist Christian wombfare is going to take over what remains of western civilization. I don't agree with every thing he says but he raised a good question! Will the Religious in the west take over. Personally and statically people with conservative and strong religious believes have much larger families. USA Stats Amish 6.9 children per woman Traditional Mass weekly 3.6 children per woman Mormons 3.4 children per woman Muslim 2.9 children per woman New Mass weekly 2.3 children per woman Atheists 1.6 children per woman Agnostics 1.3 children per woman I always have a chuckle when I see "traditionalist" Christians occasionally praise the high fecundity of Muslims while largely bemoaning and wailing what they perceive to be the "Islamic takeover of Europe" or some such the other 95% of the time. The Catholic Church, I know, acknowledges that unrestrained population growth is not necessarily a good thing in itself. (I know this isn't in the religion sub-forum, but most of us are Catholics, and besides the Catholic teaching does tend to have a certain influence in conservatism in general.) In Populorum Progression St. Paul VI says: "There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate. There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity." I'd also say we don't know how science and technology is going to develop. It could be that food scarcity might not even be a problem at a certain point. Star Trek-type replicators might come along for all we know. Or simply much more efficient ways of cultivating the earth. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Apr 29, 2022 13:14:18 GMT
The Catholic Church, I know, acknowledges that unrestrained population growth is not a good thing in itself. (I know this isn't in the religion sub-forum, but most of us are Catholics, and besides the Church tends to be influential in conservatism in genreal.) In Populorum Progression St. Paul VI says: "There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate. There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity." I wasn't aware of that and am impressed. I wonder, though, what the meeting point between "appropriate measures" and the "moral law" is. What's the Church's stand on contraception these days? I seem to recall Pope Francis saying some years back that "Catholics don't need to breed like rabbits" or some such. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2022 13:16:39 GMT
The Catholic Church, I know, acknowledges that unrestrained population growth is not a good thing in itself. (I know this isn't in the religion sub-forum, but most of us are Catholics, and besides the Church tends to be influential in conservatism in genreal.) In Populorum Progression St. Paul VI says: "There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate. There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity." I wasn't aware of that and am impressed. I wonder, though, what the meeting point between "appropriate measures" and the "moral law" is. What's the Church's stand on contraception these days? I seem to recall Pope Francis saying some years back that "Catholics don't need to breed like rabbits" or some such. He did say that! I don't think there has been any change on teaching regarding contraception. But how many people realize that natural family planning done correctly is every bit as effective as artificial contraception? Whenever I quote any Catholic document that post-dates Vatican II, on this forum, I'm bracing for objections regarding its legitimacy. But I go ahead and do it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 29, 2022 16:55:03 GMT
Having a birth rate that doesn't manage to replace the existing population is a serious long term problem. Allied to this is an increasing amount of people living longer. When the old age pension was originally introduced it was pegged at 70 , an age most people would never live to see. Economists and actuaries are pretty unanimous in predicting a colossal pension crisis in the next few decades in most Western states. Norway is one of the few states with an actual funded pension fund. We blew ours paying out foreign bankers during the financial crash. This has little or nothing to do with religious belief. Although I do also believe the sexual revolution has a tremendous social cost widely ignored by a society which enjoys its sexual freedoms. Religious restrictions , taboos and obligations are in many ways socially beneficial. So what's the answer? Keep churning out people who will in turn need more churned out to look after them and so on? Plus the other points about the detrimental effects of exponential population growth I've raised are ignored. This really is why talking about the topic in conservative circles is largely a waste of time. KJ this is an interesting but vast topic which has already attracted several responses so its hardly an example of conservatives not engaging. If I personally knew how to deal with global population issues I would be in a much better paying job! I did offer my limited thoughts on the topic which were an attempt to engage. The issue of population is controversial and there are a variety of prospectives and agendas at play. The science does not appear to be settled on this and there are large related social, economic and cultural issues which deserve to be freely aired. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Apr 29, 2022 17:10:03 GMT
John Charles Mc Quaid the Archbishop of Dublin denounced contraception after Humanae Vitae as a curse, a remark he was derided for but it was to have a huge impact on modern Irish society for better or worse. The German writer Heinrich Boll lamented the potential loss of Irish children in his famous Irish Journal from the early 1960s when birth control would arrive in Ireland. Books were written during the 1950s and 60s about an aging, vanishing Irish population.
I remember the comments made by Brian Lenihan during the 1980s economic malaise when he said there were too many (Irish) people in this state and that emigration was necessary. It was a shameful admission of a defeated state.
Now we seemingly have too few people or too few unskilled /highly skilled workers and need to import them. The Irish government plans to grow our population by an extra million people over the next few decades largely from overseas. These issues and the concerns around them rarely get debated without people being denounced as racist.
|
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Apr 29, 2022 17:47:17 GMT
I would say the exploding global population is not good news for anyone. In my lifetime it has doubled, which is astounding when I reflect on it. More urban sprawl, more wage-slavery, more opportunities for exploitation, more destruction of nature and wildlife. And of course the greater spread of "one-worldism", which means the dilution of national cultures and the differences that make life interesting. I don't expect this to be a popular view on this forum:-) Most of the world's population is concentrated in urban areas and there's plenty of space for more people - lots of land unoccupied. Humans are more valuable than wildlife and it's not the humans that are the problem it's what they do e.g. big pharma polluting rivers, materialism etc. We are not encouraged to value big families over big cars, big houses, more stuff. A lot of people make the effort to be "green" but it's not facilitated e.g. by the supermarkets - try as you might, plastic is ubiquitous and I don't worry about it anymore. If governments were serious about the environment they would ban plastic wrappings on food, encourage local production and discourage cheap imports, and they certainly wouldn't have carried on with the mask mandates for so long. Cars are not getting any smaller as far as I can see. Women working outside the home meant that there was more money to spend on houses and prices went up - a vicious circle because then they have to pay for childcare, cars etc. |
|
