The white plague.

[Urizen]

I suppose you are avare of this problem, but I will shortly describe what it is anyway. It is a decrease in population in a certain area or of a certain people, and it happens when the number of deaths per year(mortality rate) is bigger than that of births per year(natality rate). This is the case most notably in Europe, especially among the white population. The percentage of elderly citizens in Europe is one of the highest in the world. This is a problem in some other parts of the world as well(USA, Japan) I think, but I'm not sure, therefore I'l leave it to others to fill in. For a simple reproduction it is needed for every couple to have at least 2 children.

This has already produced some changes, for example economists say that soon the working life of Europeans will be prolonged so people will go to retirement later. But I'm more concerned with the demographic consequences of this trend. The number of Europeans is in a steady decline for some time now. Russia for example loses 500 000- 1000 000 citizens every year!

What is causing this?

I'll write down some reasons I can think of:

-The crazed, metropolitan view " I must have it all, career, money... family? Aaaah, I'll see if I could find some time for all that children thingy, but probably not, maybe one. "

-The attitude- the less kids you have the more you can give to them.

-Poverty. This is somewhat paradoxal, because even though poverty is one of the most common reasons for lack of children, it doesn't seem to work the other way, for it is not rare for a rich person to have a small number of children (1 or 2). And in many third world countries and especially in Muslim countries the natality rate easily exceeds the mortality rate.

I also think the predominant way of thinking is to blame, because It is not easy to understand the population increase in Europe in the middle ages for instance, especially when we take in to consideration some of the hardships present in those days such as black plague, poor medical knowledge, shorter life span(this one could just have worked towards the population increase), bigger number of stillborns... And now with all the techological advances in the field of health care, the availability of food and generally lower percentage of violent deaths, we have a decrease in population.
The emancipation of women, this one may get me many boos, but it is a fact that women today are often chasing their careers, until about age 30- 40 when fertility is lower, and the chances of healthy pregnancy smaller.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

This is not a "problem". This is the natural course of societies. Pre-industrial or agricultural societies have many children for two reasons:
1. They need the labor to keep society going and growing.
2. Infant mortality is higher than industrial society.

Every society which has reached a primarily industrial stage has seen a decrease in the number of children per couple to 2 or 3. This is not a simply cultural phenomenon; it has been observed worldwide. With the mechanization of agriculture and better health care, the two causes given above for more children disappear.

Though it is still a little early to tell, the negative growth rate of post-industrial societies (Europe, USA, Japan) also seems to be a trend which will hold up. Having built up a surplus of population, it is naturally returning to a sustainable level.

And what's wrong with having fewer children, so that you can devote more attention to each one?

 

[Genghis Khan]

...
This has already produced some changes, for example economists say that soon the working life of Europeans will be prolonged so people will go to retirement later.
...

Canada has recently passed laws that will remove the mandatory retirement age.  If a person is willing and capable to work past the age 65, s/he will not be forced to retire, without having the right to sue for age discrimination.

What is causing this?

-The crazed, metropolitan view " I must have it all, career, money... family? Aaaah, I'll see if I could find some time for all that children thingy, but probably not, maybe one. "

-The attitude- the less kids you have the more you can give to them.
...

Parents in general want their kids to have more than they had as children.  I know when my girlfriend (soon to be fiancée) and I get married, we're discussing whether we should have one or two children.  No more.  The life styles in Europe and North America have become more extravagant.  We want more time for ourselves and to explore the world.  Vacations by families were unknown prior to the 20th century and they're on the increase.  This means less small children, which cannot travel (as much), require a lot of attention and life has to be quite often changed around the infant or toddler.  Every age and human culture prior to and including the Industrial Age did not have this situation.  Kids grew around the daily activities.  They were a source of labour for the family as a whole.

The emancipation of women, this one may get me many boos, but it is a fact that women today are often chasing their careers, until about age 30- 40 when fertility is lower, and the chances of healthy pregnancy smaller.

I am personally all for women's liberation to have the same rights as men, for moral reasons.  Practically speaking, two incomes are necessary in today's economies.  I doubt that women would be having more children if they stayed at home or only worked part-time.  Societies, in general, have different standards in post-agrarian, post-industrial societies. 

I'm eagerly awaiting a reply by a parent to this topic.

A WARNING: I'm hoping this thread will not turn into something racial and bigoted.  I have seen websites devoted to this "shrinking white population" and burgeoning "Muslim/African/Asian population" that are entirely based around a racist worldview.  I know the members of this board are intelligent and accepting human beings, but every once in a while we receive a new member that is... you know what I mean.

EDIT: I see SMX has beat me to the punch.

 

[Urizen]

This is not a "problem". This is the natural course of societies.



It is a problem because countries that experience it are seeing it as a problem.

 

[Onhell]

Do you have any sources or links that we can review that says these countries see it as a problem? The only reason I can think of for why people see it as a problem is racism. Take the U.S Hispanics easily outnumber any minority AND whites in natality rates. Thus White America sees this as a problem. They see it as a form of invasion. Illegal immigrants are having children who are U.S citizens for being born on U.S soil and then they in turn have children. The reason why Hispanics have so many children can be explained by SMX's post. Culturally Mexico still has a pre-industrial mentallity, for the most part because the vast majority of the population still lives in small towns, villages and the like instead of cities.

Perun and Maidenfreak can expand more on this, but I feel the same thing occurs in Germany with the Turkish population as the "White" Germans are also becoming less.

The real problem I see is people holding on to arcaic ideas of nationality, in which not only geography but also genetics and cultural background define your nationality. In other words, if you are White, Protestant and were born in th U.S then you are a U.S citizen. If you are Black, of Mexican Parents, Asian parents. etc. you are not an "American" per say. You are a "minority". BULLSHIT. if you were born in the U.S you are a U.S citizen, if you were born in China Chinese, Germany German, etc.

 

[IronDuke]

The real problem I see is people holding on to arcaic ideas of nationality, in which not only geography but also genetics and cultural background define your nationality. In other words, if you are White, Protestant and were born in th U.S then you are a U.S citizen. If you are Black, of Mexican Parents, Asian parents. etc. you are not an "American" per say. You are a "minority". BULLSHIT. if you were born in the U.S you are a U.S citizen, if you were born in China Chinese, Germany German, etc.

We have a winner! I couldn't have said it better.

It's only been briefly touched on, but it needs repeating: The level of education in a population's women has a direct correlation to the birth rate. In the Western World, women tend to be well educated and thus able to logically think of the consequences of multiple children. Even within a given society this is true - poor "white trash" families in the USA tend to have many more children than middle and upper class families. Not because they're poor, but because they're not well-educated.

I think the fewer people we have on this planet the better we'll all be. Try the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement http://www.vhemt.org/

 

[Genghis Khan]

Thanks for the link Duke and welcome back!

One thing I found fascinating on that website is the claim that we are encouraged by our parents to produce grandchildren for their benefit.  This is so true in my culture.  One important thing we can all learn: don't be pressured by anyone to have children!

From the website:
"Q: We have children. Can we still join?

Naturally. You won't be alone. When people gain the VHEMT perspective, they decide to add no more to the existing human family. They don't pressure their children to give them grandchildren and might encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility.

There is no reason to feel guilty about the past. Guilt doesn't lead to positive solutions. Being VHEMT has nothing to do with the past. It's the future of life on Earth that Volunteers want to preserve.

Today's children are tomorrow's destiny. Our children have the potential for achieving the awareness needed to reverse civilization's direction and begin restoring Earth's biosphere. Most could use our help in realizing their full potentials."

 

[Anomica]

In Sweden we'd see a reduction of population if it weren't for the immigration - that's the only reason why our population is still growing.

The age of women having their first child has risen over the last couple of years. Today, the mean age for a first-child birth is 35 years. It's harder to become pregnant after 30, the risks of certain deseases or problems like chromosome change in the baby is increased when the mother is over 30, and there are other difficulties aswell. The human body isn't really made for taking care of babies when you're over 30-35. Consider waking nights, lack of sleep, etc etc. Our daughter (my first child, my wife's 3d) was born when I was 36 and my wife 35. I love to have her and wouldn't want to lose her for anything in this world, but the first year was horrible - the lack of sleep made me into a zombie or something

Why has the age for having the first (and usually only) child increased so much? Because childhood and youth are drawn out. 50 years ago, a 15-year old would have to help his/her parents on the farm or what have you. School was where you learnt your basic skills, reading, writing, sums. Once you had that, you could start a working life - apprenticing was very common in some branches, for example. University was only for the rich upper classes, not ordinary people. Today, we start school at 6 and don't finish university until we're 23-26. Then we want to get a career going and buy houses, cars, things, we want to travel around the world and so on and so forth. We live in egotistical times where I am the most important person in the world. There's no room for a child in our lives. When we reach 30+ we decide to realise ourselves and starts to try having children because "it's the thing to do by now". Fertility has dropped since you've grown older so it takes longer to become pregnant, the pregnancy is more complicated and after the first child, most people decide that "one is enough, I don't want to go through that again".

There are other explanations that fit in with this one, but one of the main reasons for the lack of childbirth in the western world is that we are too busy with ourselves and don't want to "waste time" taking care of and raising children. Education and careers are too important. And of course, a woman that decides to climb off her career train for a couple of years in order to have one or two children has problems when she returns to her career after 2-3 years - she's been left behind salary wise, career wise and everywhere else. This is in spite of Sweden having one of the best child care systems in the world with cheap day-care where your children are well taken care of, well fed and have the stimulation to grow emotionally in a safe, caring environment. Day care in Sweden is very good, especially when we compare with other countries. Still women that decide to have children more or less give up their career opportunities.

The rising share of the population that's over 65-70 is a large problem, since the share that's supposed to supply the funds for care of the elderly is diminishing while the elderly are increasing in numbers. Age of retirement is discussed in Sweden too, the problem is that the longer the elderly, the harder it is for young people to get into the work place, creating a generation of unemployed that might never be able to get a job.

There are problems ahead...

(I'm sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm a bit tired since my daughter woke me up early today )

 

[Cosmiceddie]

Great! The fewer people there are the better! There are far too many of us out there, let's face it! We've become the cancer to this planet...

 

[JackKnife]

I've 3 children. I thought my girlfriend was more educated than she really is....
Seriously. I think the "education" explains a part of the question only. Over 3 or 4 children it can work but does it make sense to explain the fact that many women would stop after 1 children and would never have a second one? (the real problem lays between 1 and 2 children). No. I thought that the society could help explaining this because the system of child care changes from one country to another (e.g. pretty good in France, somewhat bad in germany) and that it seemed correlated to the demography (again, I'm considering here the birth rates ranging from 0 to say, 3). But Anomica destroyed my little theory. Hum.
Anyway the factors explaining the birth rates are surely very different according to the birth rate values.
On average:
High birth rate (>4/5) may be linked to a lack of education
Medium birth rate (2-3) ???
Low values: 0-1 possibly independent on the education and more likely to be explained by lack of time, work etc... that is social factors...

There are other explanations that fit in with this one, but one of the main reasons for the lack of childbirth in the western world is that we are too busy with ourselves and don't want to "waste time" taking care of and raising children. Education and careers are too important. And of course, a woman that decides to climb off her career train for a couple of years in order to have one or two children has problems when she returns to her career after 2-3 years - she's been left behind salary wise, career wise and everywhere else. This is in spite of Sweden having one of the best child care systems in the world with cheap day-care where your children are well taken care of, well fed and have the stimulation to grow emotionally in a safe, caring environment. Day care in Sweden is very good, especially when we compare with other countries. Still women that decide to have children more or less give up their career opportunities.

 

[Marcus Agrippa]

      The following link gives a general perspective on the subject of population decline, its various reasons, some statistics and it consequences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline
      The following link describes the theory behind the interaction between birth rate and death rate during the development of a country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition    
      The following link states that some countries in the EU are concerned with their shrinking population, and are taking steps to resolved the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm
      The following link sheds some light on the subject of today’s women and their decision not to have children; also it shows some of the problems, socially and economically, that these women face for their decision: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4813590.stm
      The following link deals with this problem in Germany: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4852040.stm
      As we can see countries are perceiving the population shrink as a problem and are keen on resolving it. A population shrink is bad in an economical sense, fewer workers and costumers are not good for the economy, on the other hand a population increase is bad for the environment. Having many children in a family can be problematic for parents who are stretch out financially, and gives less time for them to spend with each one of their children, on the other hand it gives each children the opportunity to develop social skills better than a child who has no brothers or sisters, I have no way to prove this but I imagine that in a household of 7 the amount of constant interaction has to give children the necessity to develop social skill faster than one who has no sibling and does not have to deal with the sharing of material things and their parents attention. 
      In the end I believe is up to each person to evaluate their life and see what they want to do with it.

 

[Urizen]

Do you have any sources or links that we can review that says these countries see it as a problem? The only reason I can think of for why people see it as a problem is racism.

You are wrong, it's not racism, it is being concerned for the future of one's people. This is a problem among white population in Europe, but I also mentioned Japan- because I care about them too. If the population decrease was the case among black people or Hispanics and was serious I would have mentioned them also. For the links, look at Agrippa's post- especially the third link- if those figures are correct and the decrease continues we will soon be faced with a severe decrese in population of several European peoples(Italians, Spaniards, Greeks...  ))

Great! The fewer people there are the better! There are far too many of us out there, let's face it! We've become the cancer to this planet...

No we're not the cancer, oil magnats that don't give a fuck about Kyoto agreement are the cancer. Those money grabbing idiots that stop bigger usage of life saving inventions like electric and hydrogen cars, and new, cleaner energy sources are the cancer.

Anomica- good post. Thanks for the links Marcus Agrippa.

 

[Anonymous]

Do you have any sources or links that we can review that says these countries see it as a problem?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,214 ... 58,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 84,00.html
http://www.goethe.de/ges/soz/dos/dos/age/en1275489.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20060 ... 61561.html

Credibility of sources: Dw-world (Deutsche Welle World) is the primary international German news service.
Spiegel is one of the leading (serious) news magazines in Germany.
The Goethe-Institute is an organisation for promoting German cultural and linguistic activities in the world, and funded by the government.

Trust me, it is a HUGE issue in Germany.

 

[Cosmiceddie]

No we're not the cancer, oil magnats that don't give a fuck about Kyoto agreement are the cancer. Those money grabbing idiots that stop bigger usage of life saving inventions like electric and hydrogen cars, and new, cleaner energy sources are the cancer.

Yes, we are. It's us that buy and use things that destroy our planet, and the more of us there are the faster it occures.

 

[Urizen]

Maybe, but the buyer buys what is offered, and the ones that are choosing what will be offered are the ones that prefere their own little interests over this planet's wellbeing. Oil magnats are slowing the advance towards greater use of cleaner energy sources that would benefit our planet. They use the fact that we are dependent on oil, coal... and that even if the will was there(and it isn't), we couldn't possibly stop almost all cars, factories and all other fossil fuel powered things in protest against it's usage that's causing pollution.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,214 ... 58,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 84,00.html
http://www.goethe.de/ges/soz/dos/dos/age/en1275489.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20060 ... 61561.html

Credibility of sources: Dw-world (Deutsche Welle World) is the primary international German news service.
Spiegel is one of the leading (serious) news magazines in Germany.
The Goethe-Institute is an organisation for promoting German cultural and linguistic activities in the world, and funded by the government.

Trust me, it is a HUGE issue in Germany.

Glad to see someone else is avare of this.

 

[Natalie]

This thread is highly interesting. Personally, I don't think it's really a 'problem' since there are too many people in this world anyway, and the Earth as a resource can't support us all. My theory is that if we don't solve the problem on our own (as Europeans seem to be doing by having less children) then the Earth will take care of that for us with natural disasters and diseases. Either way, less people on Earth. Once having said that, I can understand that some people are worried about their cultural heritage being lost or becoming less influential. I think people are worried because they are afraid of being 'fewer'. Most people have a natural fear of being alone. I can't imagine feeling comfortable in a country where I'm the only Swede, and the locals have never even heard of Europe because there are so few Europeans that Europe and its culture has become obsolete. I'm not saying this will happen, but I think alot of people in Europe think that way. Finally, I can't say I agree with Onhell. I was born in Austria but I am proud to say that I am NOT Austrian, nor would I be glad to be made one just because I was born here. I realize that in the States it is different, but at heart I am European, and we like to be peckish about what countries we come from. That might have to change with the steadily decreasing populations, and it might be a good thing. Until then, I remain proudly Swedish (and Mexican). 

 

[Anonymous]

but I am proud to say that I am NOT Austrian, nor would I be glad to be made one just because I was born here.

From my understanding, the only ones who think being Austrian is something to be proud of are the South Tyrolians. 

 

[Natalie]

I mean..what a mean comment at the expense of those nice South Tyrolians. 

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, you just gotta love 'em...

 

[Urizen]

This thread is highly interesting. Personally, I don't think it's really a 'problem' since there are too many people in this world anyway, and the Earth as a resource can't support us all. My theory is that if we don't solve the problem on our own (as Europeans seem to be doing by having less children) then the Earth will take care of that for us with natural disasters and diseases. Either way, less people on Earth. Once having said that, I can understand that some people are worried about their cultural heritage being lost or becoming less influential. I think people are worried because they are afraid of being 'fewer'. Most people have a natural fear of being alone. I can't imagine feeling comfortable in a country where I'm the only Swede, and the locals have never even heard of Europe because there are so few Europeans that Europe and its culture has become obsolete. I'm not saying this will happen, but I think alot of people in Europe think that way. Finally, I can't say I agree with Onhell. I was born in Austria but I am proud to say that I am NOT Austrian, nor would I be glad to be made one just because I was born here. I realize that in the States it is different, but at heart I am European, and we like to be peckish about what countries we come from. That might have to change with the steadily decreasing populations, and it might be a good thing. Until then, I remain proudly Swedish (and Mexican). 

You nicely pointed out what I'm concerned about. US, after all is made by people moving in from various countries, which of course still happens.