Friday, March 31, 2006

Interesting Article on Population Growth and Decline

Another great article linked from LAF :). This Foreign Policy article is on population control, a subject I find very fascinating.

I really loved the intro to the Foreign Policy article:

Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies destined to become extinct? Hardly. It’s more likely that conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born into families who believe that father knows best.

See? I've tried to tell people that my desire to have lots of children is part of my plan for fulfilling the Great Commission :-D. I've gotten some awfully odd looks for saying that, by the way. . .

And for those who think population control is such a huge concern, I've heard from various sources for quite some time that this is not the complete story. Too bad the general media doesn't let us in on this side of the story:

With the number of human beings having increased more than six-fold in the past 200 years, the modern mind simply assumes that men and women, no matter how estranged, will always breed enough children to grow the population—at least until plague or starvation sets in. It is an assumption that not only conforms to our long experience of a world growing ever more crowded, but which also enjoys the endorsement of such influential thinkers as Thomas Malthus and his many modern acolytes.

Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next—from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East.

The population declines are such that many governments offer incentives to couples who produce children. Quite a different story from what we in America hear, eh?

It seems that merely by their own agenda for population control, liberals will manage to gradually become more and more outnumbered:

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Nor do single-child families contribute much to future population. The 17.4 percent of baby boomer women who had only one child account for a mere 7.8 percent of children born in the next generation. By contrast, nearly a quarter of the children of baby boomers descend from the mere 11 percent of baby boomer women who had four or more children. These circumstances are leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation.

Read the whole Foreign Policy article here. Need it be said that I did not agree with the slant of the article?

After reading the Foreign Policy article, then hop over to Albert Mohler's site for his review of the article.

Hattip: LAF

5 comments:

Mrs.B. said...

This was interesting, thanks for posting it. I always thought that eventually between being childless by choice and abortion that liberals were going to fade away....it just seems like a logical conclusion to draw.

Adrian C. Keister said...

A most interesting article. Thanks for the link!

This article represents a trend I see amongst the secular thinkers, a trend towards more sane and accurate reasoning. Other examples are books on gender differences. Gosh! Men and women are different! What a shock. At least they're recognizing it, and not succumbing to the silly feminist ideas about equality.

The FP article was one I found myself agreeing with, mostly. Even his evolutionary slant I can forgive, since he is pointing out an instance of microevolution, or evolution within species. Microevolution we see everywhere, but macroevolution (from one species to another) we have never seen.

Thanks again!

In Christ.

Susan said...

I'm glad you both liked the article. LAF links to some very interesting articles, and I always enjoy it when LAF is updated :).

Oh, to clarify, Adrian, when referring to the article "slant," I did not mean the evolutionary slant. I fully recognize the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The inevitable decline of ZPG folk is indeed microevolution, no two ways about it. By "slant" I meant the heavily negative tone in speaking of conservatives and patriarchy.

Samara said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Samara said...

Speaking of LAF, it's updated RIGHT NOW- uh oh, there goes some of my time :)

Regarding the population issues, I find it hard to believe that we're in any danger of economic disaster due to American population decline when our towns and cities are expanding ever more rapidly in population and space. Our local desert has been disappearing under the push of more suburban sprawl, mini-mall construction much like your area. Would it be disappearing faster, I wonder, if people not of like mind were reproducing as quickly? Or would they be adjusting, as we tend to adjust, by living without most unnecessary items and economically reducing the impact of our lives on His Creation that sustains us (not that every larger family practices the kind of consumer restraint that ours does, but for most it would seems the practical solution)? I'll be interested to see where/to whom our society turns when we are faced with the drastic decisions that our future brings.