Culture of Death Population Projections

[Lost_Found]

Our media is silent on this, so I crunched the numbers myself on what the population of my country (Canada) will be in a couple hundred years based on current fertility rates.

The rate here runs about 1.5. It had been dropping for decades but it’s actually risen slightly higher to between 1.5 and 1.6 lately because immigrants have raised the average.
For my calculations I will assume it stabilized at 1.5, even though it’s now lower and still dropping for those living the western lifestyle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Note, we’d need a fertility rate of 2.0, and then some, to maintain population. This would replace both parents and then factor-in mortality rates.

I’ll assume a zero mortality rate, and that everyone lives to eighty years old. (not to offend you old-timers, it just makes my calcs simpler.)
Assume 50% born female (it’s actually lower but again makes calcs simpler )
I’ll use a “generation” as 20 years.

2007 national population estimate is about 33 million.

2007 estimate women aged between 20-40 4.516M
1st generation progeny 4.516 X 1.5 = 6.77M
2nd ) 6.77M X .75 (that’s 1.5/2) = 5.01M
3) 5.01M X.75 = 3.81M
4) 3.81M X.75 = 2.86M
5) 2.86M X.75 = 2.14M
6) 2.14M X.75=1.61M
7)1.61M X.75=1.21M
8)1.21M X.75=.904M
9).904M X.75=.678 M
10).678M X.75=.508M

Then to arrive at the population after ten generations of twenty years (~200 yrs) I’ll sum the final 4 generations to arrive at about 3.3 million people - less than one tenth of today’s population.

The above excludes population increase from immigrants; I’m extremely confident that big business and big government will cooperate to ensure a net yearly population increase in order to grow their economy. (see fertility chart link to see where they’ll come from, and also see world populations by persons/square mile)
If anyone sees anything seriously flawed with the calcs could you let me know. I know I could have simply used the compound interest formula but longhand shows it more plainly.

I’ll leave it to you to deduce the social implications of this. I’m just running the numbers by applying the facts. However I could say with confidence that North America will be unrecognizable in just a few generations and that would be a conservative assertion.

 

[rpp]

Population decline is a worldwide phenomenon. No country will be able to grow their economy for long.

See this website and the DVD they are selling. Demographic Winter.

 

[Lost_Found]

Population decline is a worldwide phenomenon. No country will be able to grow their economy for long.

See this website and the DVD they are selling. Demographic Winter.

Thanks for the link, however the overall world population is currently increasing and will be for a while yet. That does not invalidate the analysis. See the fertility rate chart.

 

[Cari]

I have a subscription to Mother Earth News, which I have a love/hate relationship with. The part I hate is, not surprisingly as a practicing Catholic, the religion of “population control” that runs, ever so subtly, through the magazine. Quick little blurbs urging the United States to consider adopting a “population policy” are side-by-side with advertisements for expensive objects of conspicuous consumption, like hand-stitched, redwood yurts and whatnot.

I’m always boggled by seemingly intelligent people who refuse to follow their “population policies” down the road to their enevitable conclusions…

 

[goofyjim]

I’m not extremely worried. It is not all the culture of death. Many are choosing to remain abstinent. If the population declines because of this practice so be it.

 

[Mark77]

It is the culture of death, 4000 abortions daily in the US alone, 50 million killed since Roe v Wade.

 

[goofyjim]

The culture of death is only partly to blame. Again there are many just choosing to remain single and not have anychild through means of abstinence. I never said that the culture of death didn’t have some part just that you can’t blame it all ont that. And remaining abstinent is certainly not the culture of death.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Completely aside from things like predictions of Eurabia, or even the coming social security crisis, drastic declines in human populations can have other devastating effects.

We, and others who live in the “first world”, along with many in the second, have infrastructures and social arrangements that are built for the populations we now have, or larger.

Not long ago a town of which I am aware was losing population. At a point, it found that its sewage treatment facility no longer worked because not enough water was going into it to keep the, um, solids pushed along. Water systems themselves harbor bacteria if they are not kept moving at the rates for which they were designed. Electrical grids are “looped” throughout the area served. They don’t just extend out to wherever people need electricity. If, say, 1/4 of a city is depopulated (some European countries are slated for at least that) then the system has to be rebuilt or some areas must have purposeless transmission lines which would likely short out fairly quickly if not maintained, causing blackouts and fires. Will police, fire and sanitation simply have to abandon segments of cities where the population has fallen as people reconcentrate in the remaining segments? Police, fire and sanitation people all have to be born, trained and paid for. There will absolutely not be enough of them to serve an entire city if 1/4 of the population disappears. Will unused housing be demolished, or will it just deteriorate into horrific, vermin-ridden ruins?

Will reduced numbers of highway workers be able to maintain highways as they are, particularly if funds are also less? Highways have grown with populations, according to need and the resources available to build and maintain them. If populations fall, highways and roads won’t just stay the same because they will be used less. Highways deteriorate all by themselves if they are not maintained. Secondary roads, built less sturdily, do so very rapidly if not maintained constantly.

Picture how long it would take for power to be restored after a major storm of any kind, with 1/4 fewer workers and 1/4 less in funds.

Food systems are arranged to meet needs. Much of our arable land is not used for agriculture right now, but the idle land is scattered out because most of the land is not idle. Obviously, if the population declines significantly, and given growing transportation difficulties, farming areas that are more distant from the places where food products are processed, will simply not be needed at all. Will they simply be abandoned to opportunistic plant species and wild animals? And will travelers really want to face the prospect of a flat tire at night in those environments? Picture yourself getting out of your car with thick brush growing right up to the edge of the pavement, and mountain lions about. Some pretty hazardous creatures once inhabited now-settled regions of North America, for example, and certainly could do so again. Wild animals proliferate much more rapidly than most people realize.

If the population declines significantly, it won’t be smaller, boutique cities surrounded by park-like land.

When we know for certain that the entire first world and second world are on a course to population decline already, and when we realize that there is really no present sign of overpopulation in most of it, it really seems like madness to want to cause the kinds of dislocations that are bound to happen, particularly if it’s accelerated and enhanced by measures taken to actually make them worse.

 

[goofyjim]

Completely aside from things like predictions of Eurabia, or even the coming social security crisis, drastic declines in human populations can have other devastating effects.

We, and others who live in the “first world”, along with many in the second, have infrastructures and social arrangements that are built for the populations we now have, or larger.

Not long ago a town of which I am aware was losing population. At a point, it found that its sewage treatment facility no longer worked because not enough water was going into it to keep the, um, solids pushed along. Water systems themselves harbor bacteria if they are not kept moving at the rates for which they were designed. Electrical grids are “looped” throughout the area served. They don’t just extend out to wherever people need electricity. If, say, 1/4 of a city is depopulated (some European countries are slated for at least that) then the system has to be rebuilt or some areas must have purposeless transmission lines which would likely short out fairly quickly if not maintained, causing blackouts and fires. Will police, fire and sanitation simply have to abandon segments of cities where the population has fallen as people reconcentrate in the remaining segments? Police, fire and sanitation people all have to be born, trained and paid for. There will absolutely not be enough of them to serve an entire city if 1/4 of the population disappears. Will unused housing be demolished, or will it just deteriorate into horrific, vermin-ridden ruins?

Will reduced numbers of highway workers be able to maintain highways as they are, particularly if funds are also less? Highways have grown with populations, according to need and the resources available to build and maintain them. If populations fall, highways and roads won’t just stay the same because they will be used less. Highways deteriorate all by themselves if they are not maintained. Secondary roads, built less sturdily, do so very rapidly if not maintained constantly.

Picture how long it would take for power to be restored after a major storm of any kind, with 1/4 fewer workers and 1/4 less in funds.

Food systems are arranged to meet needs. Much of our arable land is not used for agriculture right now, but the idle land is scattered out because most of the land is not idle. Obviously, if the population declines significantly, and given growing transportation difficulties, farming areas that are more distant from the places where food products are processed, will simply not be needed at all. Will they simply be abandoned to opportunistic plant species and wild animals? And will travelers really want to face the prospect of a flat tire at night in those environments? Picture yourself getting out of your car with thick brush growing right up to the edge of the pavement, and mountain lions about. Some pretty hazardous creatures once inhabited now-settled regions of North America, for example, and certainly could do so again. Wild animals proliferate much more rapidly than most people realize.

If the population declines significantly, it won’t be smaller, boutique cities surrounded by park-like land.

When we know for certain that the entire first world and second world are on a course to population decline already, and when we realize that there is really no present sign of overpopulation in most of it, it really seems like madness to want to cause the kinds of dislocations that are bound to happen, particularly if it’s accelerated and enhanced by measures taken to actually make them worse.

How true. We should put an end to abortions now. OTOH if many feel the world is overpopulated and simply choose through means of abstinence not to have children, we have no right to tell them they are doing anything wrong. In this respect to each his own. The governments of the world should never have manipulated the population down but two wrongs don’t make a right so they shouldn’t step in and do the reverse either. It has to be a pure individual economic decision for couples to decide the time is right to have more children with no added incentive from a governmental structure.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How true. We should put an end to abortions now. OTOH if many feel the world is overpopulated and simply choose through means of abstinence not to have children, we have no right to tell them they are doing anything wrong. In this respect to each his own. The governments of the world should never have manipulated the population down but two wrongs don’t make a right so they shouldn’t step in and do the reverse either. It has to be a pure individual economic decision for couples to decide the time is right to have more children with no added incentive from a governmental structure.

I’m not sure what you would consider “governmental incentives”, but children are subsidized in all sorts of ways. The most obvious is the public school system and related programs such as Head Start, school lunch programs, Divisions of Family Services, Juvenile offices, YMCAs, municipal park playgrounds, publicly-supported summer camps. Day care. On and on. People sometimes think of incentives or subsidies only in terms of tax deductions or credits, but there are many more.

As much as we like to think of ourselves as autonomous, every human being is dependent on a vast array of cooperative ventures to make societies work. They all involve financial incentives of one kind or another. We pay taxes and get roads, electrical service, water, police, fire and sanitation services; things we would be hard put to do without. Among the things upon which we are dependent, and which we are willing to subsidize, is an ongoing labor force. If we did not have repeated generations of new people, hopefully reasonably healthy and skilled, human society would come to a halt very quickly. The very social security system is, in fact, not a “set aside”, which is was sold to be, but a sort of “intergenerational support compact”, whereby younger workers support older people and are, in their turn, supported by yet younger ones. Older generations do certain things to ensure the flow of those who will support them. That compact is at least as valuable as electrical service and law enforcement.

So the question is not really whether to incentivize childbearing and rearing. This society, and all advance societies, decided long ago that it must be done. The real question is how to maintain a proper balance among generations and generational support for the greatest common good.

In saying this, I am not saying each individual has an obligation to reproduce. There are valid reasons why some do not. But as a society, there is not only an obligation to reproduce, it is utterly essential for the survival of the whole.

Clearly, something has broken down. Not so much here, but certainly in other parts of the “first and second worlds”, the flow of new generations has faltered. Right now, the effects are not beyond the toleration level, although certainly the costs of supporting older generations is rising, and will rise very rapidly in the near future. Ironically, it may be reasonably believed that as the burden of supporting older generations gets heavier and heavier, people in childbearing years will find it more and more difficult to afford having children. If one looks at it, there seems to be a correllation between those societies which provide the greatest social benefits and those which produce the fewest children. If so, one needs to wonder which phenomenon causes the other, because it seems true either way. On the one hand, one sees socieities in which social services (which, in a sense, includes private infrastructures) are so lacking that people raise many children in order to help them live through their own old ages, albeit in rather primitive ways. On the other hand, there is doubtless a point at which potential parents simply cannot afford to “subsidize” the rest of society by bearing the burdens and cost of raising the children that are essential to the survival of the remainder.

(Continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(Continued)

When we look at below-replacement birth levels, we must first realize that they do threaten the lives and living standards of the whole. We must also question why those birth levels are so low. Probably there are a number of factors. Excessive consumerism is quite probably one of them. But just as people occasionally rebel in many ways against paying taxes in money, it is likely they rebel, in effect, against paying “taxes” in the form of children they must support with inadequate support from the society as a whole. Rebellion against an imbalance is not always overt or even understood by the rebel. When capital gains taxes are relatively high, for example, people simply don’t sell out of investments that have run their course in order to invest in more promising ones. When they are relatively low, people accept that taxation because they can see forward to a time when they will make up for that tax and more. But they don’t always think of it in a broad-brush theoretical way. They simply don’t reinvest.

In the same way, I believe, people don’t consciously think “I’m bearing too much of the burden of a benefit that largely goes to others, so I’m not going to have children.” They simply perceive that they are having, or will have, difficulty supporting children and avoid having them.

Therefore, it seems to me the question is not whether a society should or should not incentivize population maintenance. It’s more a question of establishing a balance that will reasonably ensure the maintenance of that society.

 

[goofyjim]

(Continued)

When we look at below-replacement birth levels, we must first realize that they do threaten the lives and living standards of the whole. We must also question why those birth levels are so low. Probably there are a number of factors. Excessive consumerism is quite probably one of them. But just as people occasionally rebel in many ways against paying taxes in money, it is likely they rebel, in effect, against paying “taxes” in the form of children they must support with inadequate support from the society as a whole. Rebellion against an imbalance is not always overt or even understood by the rebel. When capital gains taxes are relatively high, for example, people simply don’t sell out of investments that have run their course in order to invest in more promising ones. When they are relatively low, people accept that taxation because they can see forward to a time when they will make up for that tax and more. But they don’t always think of it in a broad-brush theoretical way. They simply don’t reinvest.

In the same way, I believe, people don’t consciously think “I’m bearing too much of the burden of a benefit that largely goes to others, so I’m not going to have children.” They simply perceive that they are having, or will have, difficulty supporting children and avoid having them.

Therefore, it seems to me the question is not whether a society should or should not incentivize population maintenance. It’s more a question of establishing a balance that will reasonably ensure the maintenance of that society.

How do you propose paying for population maintenance? A surtax on those whochoose toreamin single? They wouldn’t stand for it. It would be like saying the only way to pay less is to marry and that would be like the old farmer holding the gun to the guy’s head saying you will marry my daughter. At least in America there is a tax code that has deductions and exemptions for dependents but the single individual has to get the same personal exemption and standard deduction for himself. Then after that everyone should just pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, that is if we’re going to stay with a stinking income tax system to begin with. We should go to the consumption tax because I don’t believe it’s fair for the government to take any of my hard earned income for anything.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How do you propose paying for population maintenance? A surtax on those whochoose toreamin single? They wouldn’t stand for it. It would be like saying the only way to pay less is to marry and that would be like the old farmer holding the gun to the guy’s head saying you will marry my daughter. At least in America there is a tax code that has deductions and exemptions for dependents but the single individual has to get the same personal exemption and standard deduction for himself. Then after that everyone should just pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, that is if we’re going to stay with a stinking income tax system to begin with. We should go to the consumption tax because I don’t believe it’s fair for the government to take any of my hard earned income for anything.

Never would I propose a surtax on people who choose not to have children. That was actually tried in the late Roman Empire in another form, but it didn’t succeed in stemming population collapse.

I, too, am inclined to favor a consumption tax over an income tax. I’m not sure whether people without children would benefit more from that than would people with children, but at least all would have some choices in the matter. I would also favor “privatization” of social security, with a basic “safety net” underneath the whole.

Right now, though, given the political mood of the country, I think we’re going to see a lot more taxation, a lot more middle class welfare and a lot more measures, the effect of which will be to accelerate population control.

 

[Lost_Found]

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. Two comments. First, I’m just not seeing those legions of chaste people that goofyjim talks about. And secondly, abortion is simply the epitome of the culture of death

The marital/conjugal act is no longer seen as such. It’s just “sex”; it’s not associated with babies, or the mini-church/family, but co-exists nicely with large pharmaceuticals, who produce “the pill” “for” women, and “viagra” “for” old men. It is pharmaceuticals working with the medical establishment to “cure” the illnesses that result from ignoring the Natural Law.

The virtue temperance/self-control is lost. Catholic morals teaches that temperance protects the virtues of justice(our sense of) and prudence (our moral decision-making). It is every tv ad , it is pornography, it is every dollar saved in not having to have writers think up movie plots, it is every young man whose inner structure is distorted from the images he is being fed. It is the men who are not in touch with their reality, but pre-occupied with that fantasy world of their mind to the unavailability for the real people around them.
Brainwashed are the women who deny the meaning of their femininity. Again as the serpent repeated “do this and you will be like gods” - those who “work”, not for their family, but in order to “show the men how it’s done”. The motherly instincts still poke through all of their undertakings, which are so often part of the culture of death and not the family of God.

So, having a “backstop” to catch those little rascals from squeaking through, and interfering with all these ungodly plans is certainly in everyone’s best interest. It’s super-easy to keep the baby quiet, and as for the rest of us, lacking the virtues of justice, prudence and fortitude , well we don’t really complain that loudly about it, do we.

You thought it was a nasty society that was trying to include Jesus. Wait ‘till you see it without him.

 

[Lost_Found]

To put it bluntly - what will continue to occur here is the economic patch-job. Outsource people from other countries to grow the economy. It’s simple to do that here because you don’t need a high number in absolute terms, starting with 30 million people in a resource-rich country - second largest by land-area - and drawing from continents/nations with billions upon billions of poor people. It’s a no-brainer. The story is the redistribution of cultures. It is the absence of Christ and His Church and it will collapse. (Shelving manifest destiny wasn’t such a great idea after all was it boys. )

 

[drafdog]

L&F,
Your figures completely ignore Canada’s current and projected immigration rates. Go back to the drawing board.

Matthew
Former Torontonian

 

[Lost_Found]

L&F,
Your figures completely ignore Canada’s current and projected immigration rates. Go back to the drawing board.

Matthew
Former Torontonian

Hello Matthew. You are correct, the analysis is based on the fertility rate of our culture. If you have an alternate scenario then you’re welcome to present it. I don’t have a monopoly on scenarios but I’m free to present one that I seem to see.

 

[goofyjim]

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. Two comments. First, I’m just not seeing those legions of chaste people that goofyjim talks about. And secondly, abortion is simply the epitome of the culture of death

The marital/conjugal act is no longer seen as such. It’s just “sex”; it’s not associated with babies, or the mini-church/family, but co-exists nicely with large pharmaceuticals, who produce “the pill” “for” women, and “viagra” “for” old men. It is pharmaceuticals working with the medical establishment to “cure” the illnesses that result from ignoring the Natural Law.

The virtue temperance/self-control is lost. Catholic morals teaches that temperance protects the virtues of justice(our sense of) and prudence (our moral decision-making). It is every tv ad , it is pornography, it is every dollar saved in not having to have writers think up movie plots, it is every young man whose inner structure is distorted from the images he is being fed. It is the men who are not in touch with their reality, but pre-occupied with that fantasy world of their mind to the unavailability for the real people around them.
Brainwashed are the women who deny the meaning of their femininity. Again as the serpent repeated “do this and you will be like gods” - those who “work”, not for their family, but in order to “show the men how it’s done”. The motherly instincts still poke through all of their undertakings, which are so often part of the culture of death and not the family of God.

So, having a “backstop” to catch those little rascals from squeaking through, and interfering with all these ungodly plans is certainly in everyone’s best interest. It’s super-easy to keep the baby quiet, and as for the rest of us, lacking the virtues of justice, prudence and fortitude , well we don’t really complain that loudly about it, do we.

You thought it was a nasty society that was trying to include Jesus. Wait ‘till you see it without him.

If you’re not seeing the chaste people then you’re not seeing me. And you also must be assuming that everyone who is not married is automatically leading an unchaste lifestyle. Terrible assumption to believe the worst of people rather than the best.

 

[Lost_Found]

If you’re not seeing the chaste people then you’re not seeing me. And you also must be assuming that everyone who is not married is automatically leading an unchaste lifestyle. Terrible assumption to believe the worst of people rather than the best.

okay Jim point taken, I’ll work at that.

 

[JimG]

The point is that we seem to be stuck in the 1970’s thinking about the “population bomb” popularized by Paul Ehrlich. The bomb was a dud. Fertility rates are declining, a trend which if continued will lead to an inevitable demographic winter.

This trend is, in my view, far more threatening to world societies than most things currently being talked about including environmentalism and global warming. If there are no people, we won’t have to worry about either of those.

There are all sorts of incentives that governments could take to help increase fertility rates. The tax code should favor marriage and there should be substantial increases in the dependent exemption. Society ought to encourage earlier, not later, marriage.