A more honestly named group, Negative Population Growth (NPG), founded in 1972, announces: “Any cause is a lost cause without a reduction in population.” It estimates, by “scientific consensus,” that 150-200 million is the ideal U.S. population, and 2 to 3 billion is optimal for the world. This could be achieved if women chose to have no more than two children, as the resulting overall fertility rate would be about 1.5 babies per woman.
Even Newsweek magazine, however, started talking about a “birth dearth” in 2004. In fact, the trends have been visible since the early 1970s. The U.N. has been reducing its population predictions regularly for two decades.
Only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, is still discussing a total population of 15.1 billion by 2100. The highest U.N. projection in its State of World Population 1999 was 10.7 billion (TWTW 3/18/06). The low variant projection is a peak at 7.8 billion by 2050, followed by decline.
“Never before the second half of the 20th century had any person lived through a doubling of the global population,” writes Joel Cohen of Rockefeller and Columbia Universities. Then, “the most important demographic event in history occurred around 1965-1970”: the annual population growth rate peaked at 2.1% per year, then began to fall. By 2000, there were 64 countries, comprising 44% of the world's people, with total fertility rates below the level needed to replace the population in the long run (Science 2003;302:1172-1175).
By mid-century, Europe will be losing 3 to 4 million people a year. Asia will not be far behind, “as the voluntary childlessness of the Japanese is matched by the force-pace population reduction in China's one-child policy” (PRI Weekly Briefing 10/8/04). South Korea has turned its family-planning policy around and now pays for reversal of vasectomies and tubal ligations, as well as care for third and fourth children (Ariz Daily Star, 8/21/05).
Even Mexico, PRI says, is having trouble maintaining fertility at replacement level. Russian fertility is 1.2, and its population could be down by a third by mid-century (Lancet 2/26/05).
It's not just a matter of numbers. Population pyramids by age will be top-heavy by 2050 (see Cohen, Science, op. cit.).
A dramatic shift in the median age of the world's population is inevitable. By 2050, there will be two elderly persons for every child in the developed world. In the developing world, the proportion of the population over age 60 is expected to rise from 8% in 2005 to close to 20% by 2050 (Population Research Institute, PRI, 5/9/05).
In Japan, half of the population is likely to be older than 60 by the end of the century, compared with 34% for the whole world, 40% for North America, 33% for Latin America, 45% for Western Europe, 39% for China, 35% for the Middle East, and 20% for sub-Saharan Africa (Nature 2001;412:543-545).
NPG doesn't see this as a problem. For Europe and Japan, a reversal of population growth “offers those countries the opportunity to decide what population size is best for them.” For the U.S. Social Security program, “tough decisions” are needed. Adding scores of millions of new workers would at best postpone the problem–“at an enormous cost in resource depletion and environmental damage.” NPG thinks “we should see the aging of America as an opportunity to begin transitioning to sustainability” (www.npg.org/faq.html).
NPG favors restricting immigration and decreasing birth rates. It leaves to the imagination the answer to the question of who will care for the elderly.
The shrinking population is “no cause for alarm,” writes Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune (Ariz Daily Star 2/7/06). Even if it does make the welfare state still less affordable. All we need to do is boost economic growth–generally not a task for the old.
But Nicholas Eberstadt warns of the “old age tsunami,” and remarks that its impact will be even worse in poor, developing countries, threatening the economic boom in China and India. By 2025, the Chinese median age may be higher than America's. While northern India remains relatively young, the southern part with most of the huge urban centers is graying rapidly (WSJ 11/15/05).
In Asia, there's also an enormous gender gap. India is attempting to combat female infanticide, which has led to a female-to-male ratio as low as 600:1,000 in one remote village, as well as the selective abortion of up to 5 million girls per year (WSJ 5/9/00, Reuters 6/24/01). In China, a bride shortage of about 60 million has fueled kidnapping and trade in slave brides (CNSnews.com 2/15/01, WSJ 8/3/99, News Telegraph 6/23/02).
Vladimir Putin warned the Russian parliament that the lack of babies was “a serious crisis threatening Russia's survival” (WSJ 1/24/03).
The effect of demography on geopolitics may already be apparent in the Middle East. In 2005, Jews became a minority in Greater Israel. It is perhaps not coincidental that in 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza and rid itself of 1.3 million Palestinians. Unilateral disengagement may be preferable to being voted out in the event that voting rights are expanded. The late Yassir Arafat said that “the womb of the Arab woman is my best weapon.” In Israel, the fertility of Jewish women is 2.4 to 2.6, compared to 4.6 for Muslims. Jewish immigration into Israel has slowed to a trickle (PRI 8/25/05).
Some efforts are being made to increase fertility rates. European policies to help women combine employment with childbearing have had minimal effects. Some suggest attempts to reverse the trend toward delayed childbearing (Science 2003;299:1991-1992).
Perhaps partly because the importance of falling fertility is obscured by the effect of longer life expectancy on population levels, USAID still has the stated goal to “stabilize world population.” Though only authorized to encourage voluntary family planning, USAID has been accused of cooperating with involuntary sterilizations (PRI Review, Sept/Oct 2003).
Many private foundations continue to operate on the assumption that overpopulation is the threat. In 2000, 233 foundations gave grants totalling $395 million to pro-abortion causes, compared with only $5 million to pro-life causes (ibid.).
At this point, wrenching change is probably inevitable. “Never before–except in times of plague, war and deep economic depression–have birthrates fallen so low for so long,” noted The New York Times in July, 1998.
Early registration is advised for the 24th annual meeting at University Place, Portland State University, Aug. 4-6–especially if you want to see Mt. St. Helens.
The challenges to sound science, as well as civil-defense topics, will once again be featured. Issues surrounding alleged anthropogenic global warming will be addressed by several top speakers. Oregon's state climatologist George Taylor will discuss the dangers of “consensus”; Willie Soon will focus on hurricanes; and John Charles of Oregon's Cascade Policy Institute will analyze the effect of local Kyoto-like initiatives.
As life is dependent upon (not addicted to!) energy, we will look at both hydrocarbon and nuclear fuels. Does oil come from dead dinosaurs? Hear S.S. Penner and Jerome Corsi before you answer. Nuclear pioneer Ted Rockwell will give the banquet address, and Bernard Cohen and Ed Hiserodt will consider nuclear safety.
Biological terrorism, the pitfalls of politically correct science, advances in health-related science, and the war against vector-borne diseases are other highlights.
DDP, 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9, Tucson, AZ 85716, (520)325-2680, www.oism.org/ddp