So what about overpopulation?

[WillieWonka]

Why is a large population considered by some to be better than a smaller population?

 

[Brendan]

No, but we should not commit what sound reason tells us to be foolish actions.
I am not myself certain that having a large family is a foolish action. But I am certain that the question can’t be resolved by the claim that God won’t allow us to commit foolish actions and get ourselves in some rather serious trouble by so doing. Clearly He has often permitted us to get ourselves in trouble in the past.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between God ALLOWING a foolish act to happen, and God actively choosing a foolish act.

God, by the definition of being both omnipotent and Omniscient, cannot Himself actively engage in foolish actions.

But procreation is something that God MUST actively participate in. Humans cannot create a new soul by any action of themselves. God must, in an act of Divine Will, create the soul.

So there can be no human person born without God, via His own Will, choosing for that to happen. Not just allowing it to happen, but choosing, even making it happen.

That is why there can be no such thing as ‘overpopulation’ to a Catholic. That would mean that there are more people living that God had chosen to actually create, which is a contraction.

A family can certainly have fewer children than God would like them to have, but they cannot have more children than God would like them to have.

 

[JimG]

Why is a large population considered by some to be better than a smaller population?

A couple of things come to mind. For one, small populations tend to decline and die out. I can show you any number of ghost towns in Kansas which were once thriving, but are now dead due to depopulation.

Another is social security. In the aggregate, it consists of nothing but the young supporting the old. When it was first devised, there were about seven young for every old person on social security; now the ratio is closer to two workers supporting one beneficiary. With a declining population, that just can’t continue. The tax base dries up.

Another is economic growth, which is the obverse of the first example. Increasing populations provide more workers, a more diverse workforce, more industries, more innovation, more economic growth, and a greater tax base. A city with a predominantly aging population cannot do that, and tends to decline, both in population and in economic growth.

I realize that many in the population control movement just don’t want economic growth; believing that the global economy should just be in stasis. But how do we know what figure is just right for population? How do we know just when resources–whatever we mean by that–are in equilibrium with population?

If the peak oil predictions are correct, if we are running out of oil, then prices ought to be going way up. But they aren’t. They are driven more by imposed OPEC limits and refinery limits than by ‘peak oil’ limits.

If we really start running out of oil, prices will shoot up, and alternatives will become competitive. They won’t have to be made artificially so by such things as cap and trade.

 

[luvmykids]

I’m glad we agree on this. Perhaps then you could stop accusing those who disagree with you of promoting Satanic lies. That is clearly spreading fear, and we know where that comes from

I had an entire post typed up to each one of your responses, but unfortunately when I tried to post it, the forum had already logged me out and I lost it all…I am NOT going to retype everything, but I did want to retype this…You must have me mixed up with another person on this thread, because I never accused anyone of spreading Satanic lies. Please get your facts straight.

I don’t think this should be a question of fear, but of prudence.

Also, I already remember discussing prudence myself in my last post, but you must have overlooked it.

First of all, it’s also possible that the child might slaughter millions. By this argument God really pulled a dirty trick on Hitler’s parents! We don’t conceive children because we think they will do something wonderful. We conceive them because bringing new human life into the world is intrinsically good (but not in a quantifiable way).

So it’s good, but only if it’s one or two.

But more to the point, your language implies that God’s providential purposes can be thwarted, even though your whole line of rhetoric rests on the belief that they can’t be thwarted!

No, my whole point is that I do not feel that any responsible, married, loving, couple should be limiting the amount of children they have, based on fear of what could happen. You have no idea what will happen in the future that is only for God to know. You have no idea if this world will ever make it to 10 or 20 or 100 billion, because there are a lot of factors that could occur. Plagues, wars, natural disasters, armageddon…maybe even some chemical or biological warfare that renders most of us infertile. Who knows!

God made us in a way that we procreate. But you are saying it is only good if it is one or two, or one of each sex, and then we should practice our “all knowing” prudence, and stop. ONly God knows the potential of each one of us. Let Him decide. OUR part is to love one another to the best of our ability, following HIM, trusting in HIM, following His 10 commandments, none of wich include stop procreating if it looks like there are too many of you. Personally I think that is all that matters. Putting Him above all else.

And I would also like to add… please see the post above about God, actively participating in the procreation of new life and how God does not actively participate in anything foolish. Thanks.

I

 

[WillieWonka]

A couple of things come to mind. For one, small populations tend to decline and die out. I can show you any number of ghost towns in Kansas which were once thriving, but are now dead due to depopulation.

Another is social security. In the aggregate, it consists of nothing but the young supporting the old. When it was first devised, there were about seven young for every old person on social security; now the ratio is closer to two workers supporting one beneficiary. With a declining population, that just can’t continue. The tax base dries up.

Another is economic growth, which is the obverse of the first example. Increasing populations provide more workers, a more diverse workforce, more industries, more innovation, more economic growth, and a greater tax base. A city with a predominantly aging population cannot do that, and tends to decline, both in population and in economic growth.

I realize that many in the population control movement just don’t want economic growth; believing that the global economy should just be in stasis. But how do we know what figure is just right for population? How do we know just when resources–whatever we mean by that–are in equilibrium with population?

If the peak oil predictions are correct, if we are running out of oil, then prices ought to be going way up. But they aren’t. They are driven more by imposed OPEC limits and refinery limits than by ‘peak oil’ limits.

If we really start running out of oil, prices will shoot up, and alternatives will become competitive. They won’t have to be made artificially so by such things as cap and trade.

If everything you mention can be achieved by a population in a given range, why do some think a larger population is better? Would China and India be better able to achieve the states you mention with larger populations? If so, why?

Note economic growth has far outpaced population increases.

If we had unlimited storage capacity, then you night make the case for an oil price boom as speculators stored oil anticipating future shortages. But we don’t have that storage capacity. In the run up to $140 last year everyhting that could float and hold oil was used for speculative storage. Then storage capacity ran out, and demand fell to comsumption levels. (Yes, there are other factors.)

Also, be careful of people quoting oil reserves. There are geologic rsources and economic reserves. Geologc resources are what is in the ground. Economic reserves are composed of barrels that can be extracted at a profit with today’s prices, technology, and regulations. Hence, none of the available US offshore geologic resources are included as economic reserves because reguation prohibits their extraction. Nor are the 500 billion to 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale resources. (Saudi has about 250-300 billion in geologic resources.) Nor are the 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas in New York. (US now uses 20 trillion/year.)

OPEC lost its price setting ability to the futures markets years ago.

 

[Brooklyn]

I mean that no one is actually saying that we know better than God.

Yes, those who want population control are saying they know better than God because they’re saying God didn’t create enough resources in this world to sustain population growth, God screwed up, and therefore man needs to step in and regulate people being born. Man knows better than God. That is satanic.

Quote:
There is nothing anywhere in God’s Word to indicate that He rescinded his command to be fruitful
Actually there is. The command to be fruitful and multiply is linked to the command to “fill” the earth. Why are you omitting that part?

I don’t see any verse in the Bible saying stop populating when the earth is “full.” You must use a different Bible than I do.

Quote:
Man is playing god when we are told that people are a scourge of the earth
Straw man again. Sure, some environmentalists use that kind of rhetoric (probably derived from centuries of Christian teaching about human sinfulness, now secularized). But that’s not really relevant to the issue at hand. We can agree that the existence of humanity is not a scourge of the earth. But human sinfulness and folly are the scourge of the earth.

You really like the term “straw man argument”, don’t you? Well, this doesn’t fit the criteria, either. Scourge means: “a cause of affliction or calamity: Disease and famine are scourges of humanity” Man is considered a scourge on the earth when his numbers are too big because it is destructive to the earth. You agree that the real scourge of the earth is sin, not man. So why do you want to see human populations limited?

Quote:
and must be limited in their growth.
I would prefer to say “must be responsible in our stewardship of the earth.” I’m happy to be vague about what that means in this regard. I honestly don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about population control. I don’t think it’s the big issue that some environmentalists claim. But many of the objections to it are simply irrational.

If you don’t have strong feelings one way or another about population growth, why in the world are you fighting with me? I think you just put up a “straw man argument.” Is man populating in large numbers “irresponsible stewardship?”

Quote:
That is a satanic lie directly from the enemy of God who wants to destroy us.
That makes no sense. How is the slowing or even arresting of population growth “destruction” on either a physical or spiritual level?

To “arrest population growth” means telling people not to have children who can one day become members of the Kingdom of God. That is just what Satan wants, to eliminate as many people as possible.

Quote:
Man is God’s ultimate creation and when God created us He said it was very good. To want to eliminate the human race in any way is Satanic
Straw man again. Fewer humans, or not as many more humans as there might be, hardly mean the “elimination” of the human race. That implies that the human race was “eliminated” until it reached the current population level–which is plainly absurd.

God pronounced creation very good when (if we take the story literally) there were only two humans. Obviously God told those humans to procreate. But creation was already very good, so clearly it would be very good if there were a million or a billion or the present number (is it six or seven billion now? It goes up so fast I can’t keep track), instead of some larger number.

Could you find another phrase other than “straw man”? Every single human is a precious gift from God. To purposely eliminate people by reducing the number of children born because it’s too “destructive” to the earth is Satanic. See my argument above.

Your second argument makes no sense to me. Are you trying to say that even though God has given us the ability to procreate, he wants us to stop? I didn’t see anywhere in the bible where it says that 6 billion people is enough folks, you can stop now.

Quote:
Do you really believe God would create a world, put his most precious creation on that world and not give us all we need to survive?If so, you really do believe God is incompetent and you know better than He does.
B]Again, this is simply a silly argument. You could defend any destructive behavior on the ground that God would not allow it to have its natural effect. This is called “tempting God,” and we are sternly commanded not to do this in Scripture.

A “silly argument?” How is doing what God told us to do “multiply and fill the earth” the same as “any destructive argument?” Procreating as God told us to do is somehow “tempting” God? You and I really don’t read the same Bible.

Quote:
All the great poverty and suffering in the world is the result of sin, of man’s greediness and trying to do it his own way instead of God’s way. God did not tell Adam and Eve that they could not have more than 2 children, and he did not say that to their descendants at any time.
But he also didn’t say that they must keep going ad infinitum. You are the one resting an argument on this passage, so the burden of proof is on you to show that the passage means what you say it means.

Again, I don’t find anywhere in the Bible where God says, okay this many people and you can stop having children.

And it is absolutely true that all suffering in the world is the result of sin, the result of rejecting God’s law of love. If you don’t agree with that, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Quote:
Man in not the scourge of the earth, he is the earth’s crowning glory. Sin is the scourge of the earth. That is what must be eliminated, not human beings.
Relax. The elimination of human beings is not the issue. In fact, what the more doomsday environmentalists are trying to prevent is the elimination of human beings. I’m not sure it would go that far, myself. But we might as well not find out!

I’m afraid that for our enemy, Satan, the elimination of mankind is the issue, and he is the one we are really fighting on this. Anytime anyone says that man is the problem, it is not coming from God. Our Lord came to earth and died for us. He doesn’t consider mankind a problem at all. He wants as many people in his family as he can get.

Satan is the one who thinks there are too many people, not Our Lord.

Mary

 

[JimG]

Yes, OPEC doesn’t have as much clout. But the same token, no storage capacity is needed to bid up the price of oil. If I order 500,000 barrels of oil on the futures market, I don’t need a place to store it, because I’m going to close out the contract before it matures.

But if we were really running out of oil, the price would get bid up astronomically in a hurry, both in the futures and in the spot market.

My main point is that declining populations lead to stagnation, and no one knows what an optimal population is. Great Britain was probably running close to its capacity in 950 AD; and anyone looking at the country would have thought it could not sustain much more population. But if its population now were what it was then, it would be in steep decline.

 

[Brooklyn]

I think I understand it quite well, actually. I am not entirely sure either way on the question of whether artificial contraception is intrinsically incompatible with being “open to life.” I do believe that for a married couple to choose to have *no *children at all (unless perhaps they choose to adopt children instead of conceiving them naturally) is a denial of their calling.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t value other kinds of life as well. Goods are not in competition with each other as often as many of us assume in our fear and lack of faith.

See, here’s the problem. By linking a highly dubious claim of fact with the Church’s teaching, you discredit the Church’s teaching in the minds of many. This is not wise. You need to make it clearer that your claim about overpopulation is your *opinion *and is open to debate. One can believe that overpopulation is a serious potential problem without denying any teaching of the Catholic Church. Are we agreed on that point?

Examples?

This is a very bad line of argument. Steven Pinker has suggested that abortion may have led to a drop in crime. We should be able to agree that either your suggestion or his is irrelevant to the moral issue. Abortion would be wicked even if it could eliminate crime altogether and create a paradise on earth.

I don’t think we should put the question that way. It is tyrannical to run around trying to limit other people’s populations. But those of us who are married can make choices. Given the age at which my wife and I got married, having a really large family wasn’t an issue anyway. But we could certainly have procreated a bit faster than we have. I don’t claim that overpopulation was a particularly important consideration, by the way.

I don’t criticize folks who have large families. As an only child, I like the liveliness of a large family. What I’m really looking for is more modest: let those who have large families stop claiming to be spiritually superior and stop pushing large family size as some kind of Christian duty. And let’s not make bad arguments in the mistaken belief that Christian teaching forces us to do so.

I’m not sure we are doing the most damage. But I am sure that we are in a better position to stop doing damage.

I don’t think anyone is supposed to stop having children.

We certainly shouldn’t shift the blame to other people. I’m not sure why you bring that up–another straw man, I guess! And I don’t think that loading ourselves down with guilt is helpful. Rather, we should practice the virtues of prudence and temperance (neither of which are strong points for me!), and for that matter the other five as well, in whatever ways our particular callings and locations lead us to do. Vague, but the best I can do–I don’t think there’s a panacea.

And that’s where you lose me. You simply don’t seem to be thinking logically about this at all. For me it’s not really about how many children we should have. It’s about admitting that there are serious issues with the consumption of the world’s resources and that we need to tackle these issues in a wise and virtuous way instead of dismissing them.

I’m not sure it’s that simple. God placed us on earth to take care of it. God cares for the whole of creation. We don’t need to see ourselves in competition with the earth which God has entrusted to us.

Edwin

When two Catholics get married, they must vow to be open to life. If they are not open to having children, the Catholic Church does not consider the marriage valid. That is why artificial contraception is also a mortal sin. You are not Catholic so I cannot expect you to understand or accept that.

I will never agree to artificially limiting the procreation of man. Mankind is the ultimate, most important creation of God because mankind is the only part of God’s creation who can actually become a member of the Kingdom of Heaven. There should never be a limit put on that. To do so is, once again, satanic.

I will keep using the word “satanic” as long as you keep using the phrase “straw man.”

BTW, Japan and Russia are just two examples of countries who are very concerned about underpopulation. More people are dying there than being born. And China is very concerned about the larger number of males compared to females, because of the tens of millions of girls who have been aborted
Mary

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, OPEC doesn’t have as much clout. But the same token, no storage capacity is needed to bid up the price of oil. If I order 500,000 barrels of oil on the futures market, I don’t need a place to store it, because I’m going to close out the contract before it matures.

But if we were really running out of oil, the price would get bid up astronomically in a hurry, both in the futures and in the spot market.

My main point is that declining populations lead to stagnation, and no one knows what an optimal population is. Great Britain was probably running close to its capacity in 950 AD; and anyone looking at the country would have thought it could not sustain much more population. But if its population now were what it was then, it would be in steep decline.

You can easily bid up the price if you can buy everything offered between the current price and your target pice. You can’t just increase the bid from $50 to $100. You would have to buy from all sellers who offer all the way from $50 to $100. If what you suggest could be done, then we might ask why it doesn’t happen in all markets.

Now that you own everything offered from $50 to $100, you have to find someone to buy to it all from you at a price where you make a profit.

We might simply ask how the price fell last year from $140 to $40 if one just has to bid it up. Once the price is at $100 (my example), sellers come out of the woodwork. They don’t have to have any product, just sell the future. You have to keep buying and buying to protect your ballooning position.

If you can’t get out of your positions before delivery, then you have to come up with the full price (the one you bid way up). If you can’t come up with the cash on frst notice date, the exchange dumps your position and does a fed funds draw on everything in your margin account.

But, you are correct that there really is no oil shortage. As I pointed out in my last post, we are awash in oil.

What you essentially describe is a corner, and there have been very, very few that have succeeded. the last real attempt was when the Hunt brothers tried with silver in the early Eighties.

My question isn’t about a declining population, it is about why some think a larger popuation is always better than a smaller population. You offered some desired states of the system, so my question became why it is better to have a population greater than that needed to maintain the desired states you identified. And China and India? Would they be better off with larger populations?

 

[Secret_Square]

I think the problems come not so much from population increase or decline per se as from sudden or drastic shifts in population growth – such as the 20-year Baby Boom in the U.S. immediately followed by a 15-year Baby Bust. Or the ravages of AIDS in Africa which lowered life expectancy and left many children orphaned. Or the significant gender imbalance in China after 30 years of an official “one child” policy (which the government is now allowing exceptions to for couples whose first child is a girl.) Gradual shifts in birth rates are less likely to cause social problems.

As I pointed out earlier, the replacement level of fertility for a particular nation, region, or continent varies depending on such factors as life expectancy and infant/child mortality. Even in developed nations where nearly all children survive to adulthood, replacement level is always slightly MORE than 2 children per woman – because some women will need to have more than 2 children to make up for those who have only 1 child or none at all.

In fact I can cite my own family (myself, my brother and our spouses) as an example. My husband and I have only one child (married late, hard time concieving). My brother and his wife have none living (they have tried to concieve but have had only repeated miscarraiges ) Due to our ages (late 40s) it’s very unlikely either of us will be able to have any more children. We’re 3 kids short of replacing ourselves, but another couple who has 5 kids may be taking up the demographic slack for us So there’s still a place for large families even in a low- or zero-population-growth world.

 

[JimG]

What you essentially describe is a corner, and there have been very, very few that have succeeded. the last real attempt was when the Hunt brothers tried with silver in the early Eighties.

My question isn’t about a declining population, it is about why some think a larger popuation is always better than a smaller population. You offered some desired states of the system, so my question became why it is better to have a population greater than that needed to maintain the desired states you identified. And China and India? Would they be better off with larger populations?

I wasn’t really trying to either describe or make a point about cornering the market; my only point was that supply and demand on the futures markets is independent of storage capacity, at least in so far as most participants will not be taking delivery.

Neither was I offering a desired ‘state of the system’ with regard to population. My point is that no one can know or predict what is the optimal state of the system, or the optimal population, or predict the future of unknown resources.

 

[WillieWonka]

I wasn’t really trying to either describe or make a point about cornering the market; my only point was that supply and demand on the futures markets is independent of storage capacity, at least in so far as most participants will not be taking delivery.

Neither was I offering a desired ‘state of the system’ with regard to population. My point is that no one can know or predict what is the optimal state of the system, or the optimal population, or predict the future of unknown resources.

Supply and demand on futures markets with physical delivery is dependent on storage for physical commodities since it is that available capacity that determines how expiring contract positions can be disposed of. It also is extremely important to contango spreads which were the primary drivers of the oil run up last year, and upon which your analysis depends.

I think you are confusing cash settlement futures with physical settlement futures. A physical commodity futures contract may be either, but oil is physical. You are correct for cash settlement contracts.

Thos who want to avoid delivery typically roll at delivery, but then have to deal with carrying costs which can easily eat up all their profits. It’s not simple game.

So, if no one can predict the optimal state, population, or resource availabliity, why do some think a larger popuation is better than a smaller population?

 

[JimG]

So, if no one can predict the optimal state, population, or resource availabliity, why do some think a larger popuation is better than a smaller population?

Just from experience. e.g. Russia, Japan, small and disappearing Kansas towns, and the inexorability of decline when birthrates drop below replacement rates. If the population of my city, or of NYC, begins to decline rapidly, I sure won’t be investing in their municipal bonds.

 

[Brooklyn]

Just from experience. e.g. Russia, Japan, small and disappearing Kansas towns, and the inexorability of decline when birthrates drop below replacement rates. If the population of my city, or of NYC, begins to decline rapidly, I sure won’t be investing in their municipal bonds.

I must say I am completely horrified by the post I am seeing here We are talking about human beings and whether it is right or wrong to bring them into the world. We are talking about man, for whom Our Creator came into the world and spilled his blood, dying a horrendous death on the cross so that we can become members of the Kingdom of God, and you are all talking economics!!! Is it economically worthwhile to have smaller populations or not, and what effect will it have on economies! What is wrong with you people? Is money all that matters?!

Just to remind you, you will not be taking your money with you when you die, and if all you are thinking about is money and the things of this world, then I truly fear for your souls.

Mary

 

[WillieWonka]

Just from experience. e.g. Russia, Japan, small and disappearing Kansas towns, and the inexorability of decline when birthrates drop below replacement rates. If the population of my city, or of NYC, begins to decline rapidly, I sure won’t be investing in their municipal bonds.

Well, I am asking why some people favor larger populations over smaller populations, and you keep responding about declining populations. So, we have no commn basis for discussion. Thanks.

So, can anyone tell us why one should favor larger populations over a smaller populations? Why always think any larger polulation is better than the current population? Who thinks China and India would be better off if they increased their populations?

 

[WillieWonka]

I must say I am completely horrified by the post I am seeing here We are talking about human beings and whether it is right or wrong to bring them into the world. We are talking about man, for whom Our Creator came into the world and spilled his blood, dying a horrendous death on the cross so that we can become members of the Kingdom of God, and you are all talking economics!!! Is it economically worthwhile to have smaller populations or not, and what effect will it have on economies! What is wrong with you people? Is money all that matters?!

Just to remind you, you will not be taking your money with you when you die, and if all you are thinking about is money and the things of this world, then I truly fear for your souls.

Mary

Bring human beings into the world? Where are they before they get into the world? How many are on the waiting list?

 

[PapaSquash]

Well, I am asking why some people favor larger populations over smaller populations, and you keep responding about declining populations. So, we have no commn basis for discussion. Thanks.

So, can anyone tell us why one should favor larger populations over a smaller populations? Why always think any larger polulation is better than the current population? Who thinks China and India would be better off if they increased their populations?

China and India are the world’s two big up-and-coming nations. Human resources are no more to be over-exploited than any other resources, but, make no mistake, they are the most valuable resource anybody has.

 

[redhen]

Well, I am asking why some people favor larger populations over smaller populations, and you keep responding about declining populations. So, we have no commn basis for discussion. Thanks.

So, can anyone tell us why one should favor larger populations over a smaller populations? Why always think any larger polulation is better than the current population? Who thinks China and India would be better off if they increased their populations?

I have found that those who implicitly, or explicitly hold that there are no limits to human population growth fall into several predictable categories;

• politicians; more people = more potential votes
• economists; economic growth (which is assumed to be of vital importance) requires population increases.
• land developers/builders; without constant population growth these people would have a lot less work to do.
• Abrahamic religions; for reasons mentioned by posters here.

In all these categories, it seems that constant human population growth is a given necessity. Opposing views are not seriously entertained. The truth seeking principle does not apply. I find this disappointing and sad.

 

[JimG]

I must say I am completely horrified by the post I am seeing here We are talking about human beings and whether it is right or wrong to bring them into the world. We are talking about man, for whom Our Creator came into the world and spilled his blood, dying a horrendous death on the cross so that we can become members of the Kingdom of God, and you are all talking economics!!! Is it economically worthwhile to have smaller populations or not, and what effect will it have on economies! What is wrong with you people? Is money all that matters?!

Just to remind you, you will not be taking your money with you when you die, and if all you are thinking about is money and the things of this world, then I truly fear for your souls.

Mary

I believe that I am on your side on this issue. It was you who made a point a few posts back about Russia and Japan worrying about underpopulation. Economics is nothing more than interactions of people. Without people, there is no economy.

 

[JimG]

I have found that those who implicitly, or explicitly hold that there are no limits to human population growth fall into several predictable categories;

• politicians; more people = more potential votes
• economists; economic growth (which is assumed to be of vital importance) requires population increases.
• land developers/builders; without constant population growth these people would have a lot less work to do.
• Abrahamic religions; for reasons mentioned by posters here.

In all these categories, it seems that constant human population growth is a given necessity. Opposing views are not seriously entertained. The truth seeking principle does not apply. I find this disappointing and sad.

Politicians only want more voters if they are voters for their particular party. Economists seldom agree on anything including the optimal population for a society. I don’t normally hear land developers talking much about population; they will build houses if there is demand; if not, they’ll build something else.

As for religions, the Catholic Church is the only one I know of for certain that opposes artificial birth control. But even it has no stated policy on optimal population.

I might make the opposite point. Those who propose limiting populations don’t point to any particular concrete examples of nations or regions which have greatly benefited from population decline.