Why is the population decreasing so much in some countries?

[lerapt78]

I read somewhere that a fertility rate around 1.9 is acceptable because the country is able to handle the more gradual decrease in population, while the same around 1.3 is problematic because the nation is unable to cope with the rapid drop in population.

Maybe another poster has more info on this.

I offered some thoughts on this problem in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677633

It had to do specifically with China’s sex-selective abortion though, and the shortage of women, so it’s not an entirely accurate comparison to general underpopulation. If you’re interested.

 

[Crescentinus]

In this day and age, both men and women look upon children as more a curse than a blessing.

This is not just a Western problem. Countries such as Japan, South Korea and even Singapore are having that problem as well. In Singapore’s case, it’s because of Lee Kwan Yew’s aggressive population control policy in the 1970’s, a policy which Singapore has been regretting ever since.
As for Japan and South Korea, it has more to do with their cultures’ view that more younger people should go in the workplace instead of having families. The scary thing is, this mentality is not just one of the predominant causes of their demographic crisis, it’s also what exacerbates the crisis. So unless both Japan and South Korea have decided to restore their traditional views on children as blessings, have government policies which would not place a large economic strain on families, encourage the young adults that one can have a stable family as well as financially successful at the same time and not give away financial handouts to starting families, then the demographic crisis can be averted.

 

[lerapt78]

This is not just a Western problem. Countries such as Japan, South Korea and even Singapore are having that problem as well. In Singapore’s case, it’s because of Lee Kwan Yew’s aggressive population control policy in the 1970’s, a policy which Singapore has been regretting ever since.

It really surprised me when I heard a few years ago about Japan’s low birth rate. Never having visited the country myself, I rely on stereotypes and what I am able to read, but it seems a country that is fairly traditional would not have this problem. I suppose it has much to do with the extremely high cost of living.

 

[Crescentinus]

It really surprised me when I heard a few years ago about Japan’s low birth rate. Never having visited the country myself, I rely on stereotypes and what I am able to read, but it seems a country that is fairly traditional would not have this problem. I suppose it has much to do with the extremely high cost of living.

Japan and South Korea have rather high costs of living. Hence, it is one of the reasons why they have low birthrates.

 

[manualman]

Why is it so bad for a country’s population to be decreasing? I don’t really understand why this is a bad thing? If every country in the world had increasing populations at some point there would be more people in the world than could be supported.

The historic evidence suggests that human populations tend to self-stabilize in the absence of significant cultural and social upheaval. Poor Agrarian societies have historically had high fertility rates, but short lifespans and high mortality rates, so long term population growth is low. Wealthy urban societies that have been so for more than a couple generations in prior centuries have (contrary to popular opinion) ALSO had very low population growth rates because the nature of urban life inherently encourages lower fertility rates. (This has been the case long before commercial contraception was invented, btw) Where explosive population growth occurs is during the time period of transition when adequate nutrition, sanitation and medicine is introduced to previous poor rural people. Their survival rate skyrockets and it takes a couple generations for their fertility patterns to adjust.

This naturally self-stabilizing effect has been badly disrupted in recent decades by widespread misplaced concerns about global population growth and Mathusian theories about resource depletion (Malthus first predicted imminent doom of this sort almost a century ago!). The result has been an over-correction such that those wealthy urban societies that naturally would have had about a replacement rate fertility have dropped to substandard while the poorer nations are proceeding far more rapdily than ever before in the downwards transition of fertility rate.

Why is this a problem? We’re in the early stages now of a sneak preview of the sorts of economic convulsions this will produce. Own a house? Hope you don’t need to sell it soon. The Baby boom generation spurred a housing construction boom unprecedented in American history. That generation had FAR fewer children than their parents, but still almost replacement level. Boomers are now mostly empty nesters and are starting to want out of their big family homes to downsize. Headlines in recent years have been about foreclosures, but underneath the surface the larger problem is a mismatch between supply (massive numbers of boomers interested in selling) and a smaller number of the next generation willing and able to buy. Same thing happened in Japan a decade ago and, not coincidentally, their demographic dropoff started about that much sooner than ours (theirs was much more dramatic too). Japan still really hasn’t recovered.

It may be true that population growth articially stimulates economic growth in a way that can’t be sustained indefinately. But it is ALSO true that population decline will artificially constrict economic growth by the same mechanisms. Americans have been spoiled by the wealth our population boom has generated. I don’t think we’ve got the national character to weather the contractions ahead without social turmoil. I think there is a very real possibility of social unrest in this country in the decades ahead and population decline will only pour fuel on that fire.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Very cool! Canada should definitely adopt that measure–we’re far below replacement rate, at 1.5-1.6…

The French do it in large part because they want to protect a unique French culture from Islamic, at the present time, encrochment, as their young will be the workers supporting retired Frenchmen. Canadians are more multi-cultural in outlook and are happy to import First Nation claimers from the US, Chinese, Mexicans…

 

[RobbyS]

The historic evidence suggests that human populations tend to self-stabilize in the absence of significant cultural and social upheaval. Poor Agrarian societies have historically had high fertility rates, but short lifespans and high mortality rates, so long term population growth is low. Wealthy urban societies that have been so for more than a couple generations in prior centuries have (contrary to popular opinion) ALSO had very low population growth rates because the nature of urban life inherently encourages lower fertility rates. (This has been the case long before commercial contraception was invented, btw) Where explosive population growth occurs is during the time period of transition when adequate nutrition, sanitation and medicine is introduced to previous poor rural people. Their survival rate skyrockets and it takes a couple generations for their fertility patterns to adjust.

This naturally self-stabilizing effect has been badly disrupted in recent decades by widespread misplaced concerns about global population growth and Mathusian theories about resource depletion (Malthus first predicted imminent doom of this sort almost a century ago!). The result has been an over-correction such that those wealthy urban societies that naturally would have had about a replacement rate fertility have dropped to substandard while the poorer nations are proceeding far more rapdily than ever before in the downwards transition of fertility rate.

Why is this a problem? We’re in the early stages now of a sneak preview of the sorts of economic convulsions this will produce. Own a house? Hope you don’t need to sell it soon. The Baby boom generation spurred a housing construction boom unprecedented in American history. That generation had FAR fewer children than their parents, but still almost replacement level. Boomers are now mostly empty nesters and are starting to want out of their big family homes to downsize. Headlines in recent years have been about foreclosures, but underneath the surface the larger problem is a mismatch between supply (massive numbers of boomers interested in selling) and a smaller number of the next generation willing and able to buy. Same thing happened in Japan a decade ago and, not coincidentally, their demographic dropoff started about that much sooner than ours (theirs was much more dramatic too). Japan still really hasn’t recovered.

It may be true that population growth articially stimulates economic growth in a way that can’t be sustained indefinately. But it is ALSO true that population decline will artificially constrict economic growth by the same mechanisms. Americans have been spoiled by the wealth our population boom has generated. I don’t think we’ve got the national character to weather the contractions ahead without social turmoil. I think there is a very real possibility of social unrest in this country in the decades ahead and population decline will only pour fuel on that fire.

In the 18th century, American had one of the highest birth rates known to history. Sometime around 1700, the people finally adjusted to the environment in America. Earlier, the average immigrant lived less than ten tears after arrival. But in the 18th century, there was a population explosion based on lots of food and relatively better living conditions. A Virginian living in the Shenandoah valley in 1776, probably had a better living standards than an English Cottager in Oxfordshire in 1876. Blacks increased in numbers as fast as whites, creating a problem for slave-owners in Virginia. Slavers kept coming. driving down the prices of Virginia slaves. The growing number of whites created a hunger for land, for a relatively few landowners held title to what was east of the mountains.

 

[RobbyS]

A persistent fertility rate that is below replacement level means that a society will not reproduce itself. It will decline and become economically unsustainable. Japan is the first example of a persistent declining fertility rate leading to economic stagnation and an aging population. European nations are now following suit. You might start with this movie: youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Also see the links I posted above from Catholic World Report on underpopulation.

An interesting coincidence was the development of the industrial revolution at the same time as the population boom in Europe.

 

[Crescentinus]

The movie can be found here. I think it is worth 51 minutes to watch it through. For myself, I think the presentation is a little disjointed, and a great many statistics are passed over too quickly. But that’s just me.

Demographic winter is a real possibility. I don’t know if it’s too late to turn things around or not. I hope so, but I’m not optimistic. We are becoming an aging society without children. The movie provides a great deal of food for thought.

I am thinking of showing that movie to classrooms here in the Philippines as well as to the rest of the Far East. Why? It is an antidote to the poison that the world is overpopulated.
I, among many in my generation, grew up on idiocies such as AGW and overpopulation. When I was a high school sophomore, our Social Sciences teacher had shown my class among other sections the movie “Soylent Green”. “Soylent Green” had reinforced what my generation had been taught. I had thought that the world is overpopulated. That view was unchallenged until a couple of years ago when I saw “Demographic Winter”. It had opened my eyes and had made me think.

 

[Nabooru]

Keep in mind that the global birth rate is in a general decline; even amongst Muslim countries, albeit slower than Christian ones (probably due to poverty and lack of access to contraception). And more religious people have more children than less religious people.

So what does this mean? Personally I predict something like this: growing nationalism in Europe leads to demands for decreases in Muslim immigrants, God willing. The areligious population drops and the religious population goes up. This doesn’t mean Catholic families in France will have 8 kids, but they will have kids. The population stabilizes worldwide at a lower rate of growth. I may just be being optimistic, though.

I remember taking a geography class in which the prof discussed population patterns. In the agricultural stage, birth and death rates are high. In the developing stage, birth rates are high and death rates lower. In the post-industrial stage (provided I get the names of the stages right) both the birth and death rates drop, stabilizing the population. Immigrants from lower-stage countries to post-industrial ones begin living at the developing level, the adapt to post-industrial within a few generations.

Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that American nativists were clamoring for laws to keep those baby-happy Irish Catholics out of the country,

 

[benjammin]

Keep in mind that the global birth rate is in a general decline; even amongst Muslim countries, albeit slower than Christian ones (probably due to poverty and lack of access to contraception). And more religious people have more children than less religious people.

So what does this mean? Personally I predict something like this: growing nationalism in Europe leads to demands for decreases in Muslim immigrants, God willing. The areligious population drops and the religious population goes up. This doesn’t mean Catholic families in France will have 8 kids, but they will have kids. The population stabilizes worldwide at a lower rate of growth. I may just be being optimistic, though.

I remember taking a geography class in which the prof discussed population patterns. In the agricultural stage, birth and death rates are high. In the developing stage, birth rates are high and death rates lower. In the post-industrial stage (provided I get the names of the stages right) both the birth and death rates drop, stabilizing the population. Immigrants from lower-stage countries to post-industrial ones begin living at the developing level, the adapt to post-industrial within a few generations.

Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that American nativists were clamoring for laws to keep those baby-happy Irish Catholics out of the country,

I don’t think this will happen. I think Europe is never going to return to christianity. I think the nationalism will come,but it will be a secular nationalism where they just want to keep immigrants from having jobs and out of their country. Also, there will continue to be inter migration in Europe, such as the Poles in Britain etc, which may give some hope, but eventually they may lose the faith… However, if we keep praying maybe this fate won’t occur

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t think this will happen. I think Europe is never going to return to christianity. I think the nationalism will come,but it will be a secular nationalism where they just want to keep immigrants from having jobs and out of their country. Also, there will continue to be inter migration in Europe, such as the Poles in Britain etc, which may give some hope, but eventually they may lose the faith… However, if we keep praying maybe this fate won’t occur

Christianity has been in decline in England for more than one hundred and fifty years. This followed a resurgence caused by the evangelical which, under the leadership of Wilberforce, effected a revolution in morals. Victorianism dominated English life until after the Second World War. But as Newman pointed out, theological liberalism undercut all this, and Darwinism made agnostics of a great and great portion of the middle classes. In the lifetime of the Queen, herself a devout believer, the nation has ceased to be Christian.