A scarier strategic problem - no people

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a strategic dilemma which is a helluva lot more pressing and waaaay scarier than the ‘no oil’ possibility at:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html  This is from today’s (19 Jan 07) Globe and Mail and it is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070119.wrreynolds19/TPStory/Business/columnists

The incredible shrinking country

NEIL REYNOLDS
From Friday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Why should we care that Canada's population will implode in the coming century? There are really only two reasons and one of them is profoundly irritating. The reason most cited is that governments need a minimum number of taxpayers to fund the spending that defines their purpose. By this reasoning, people exist to serve the State. The reason least cited is impossibly sentimental but more persuasive -- that we possess a civilization worthy of preservation, built across centuries of hard work and sacrifice, and that we really should try to pass it on, relatively intact, to a next generation. And that this kind of heavy lifting requires a minimum number of productive people. The reality, however, is that Canada will begin to downsize rapidly in 2030.

Immigration can't stop Canada's population from growing inexorably older. Neither can it produce enough babies to avert a precipitous, self-perpetuating decline in population. With a falling fertility rate (now 1.5 babies for each woman, 0.5 babies short of population replacement), Canada's population could drop by more than 25 per cent in any single generation -- from 34 million in 2030, for example, to perhaps 25 million. This order of decline could continue for a hundred years or more -- and by no means in Canada alone. In a 2003 report on fertility rates in 30 democratic wealthy countries, the OECD asserts: "The current levels of fertility imply that the populations of [all these] countries will shrink to about one-third of today's levels in about one century." This implies a Canadian population of 12 million in 2100, marginally more than the population recorded by the census of 1931.

The OECD report puts the average fertility rate of these 30 countries at 1.6, which is higher by 0.1 than Canada's rate -- where a fertility loss of 0.1 equals a million and a half lost people per generation. It warns of "a sharp reduction in the populations of all OECD countries in the near future." It warns that these countries will produce slower rates of economic growth, will grow relatively poorer as they grow absolutely smaller.

We are frequently assured that Canada will compensate for its critical shortage of births by accepting more immigrants. This is simply not correct. Canada's dwindling work force population might be able to pay for health care and pensions for the rising numbers of old folk. It might be able to support huge numbers of impoverished immigrants, most of them living in either Toronto or Vancouver. It will not be able to do both.

The consequences of low fertility rates will be enormous. By some demographic projections, low-fertility Japan will decline from 127 million people to 105 million people by 2050. In contrast, high-fertility Yemen will increase from 18 million to 84 million. The OECD report concludes that, aside from less prosperous economies, low fertility rates will produce a worsening of "dependency ratios" -- meaning that, in the absence of families, governments will be compelled to take care of more people.

Except for New Zealand, Iceland and the U.S., with fertility rates high enough to sustain their populations, all the democracies will decline -- some more quickly and more severely than Canada. Spain, Greece and Italy have rates below 1.3, as do the former Soviet bloc countries.

It won't help to import large numbers of people from high-fertility countries. Immigrant women don't come with reproductive guarantees. As the OECD report puts it, "the reproductive behaviour of foreign women converges toward that of native women [in the 30 democracies]."

Statistics Canada confirmed this finding in its report last year on the fertility rates of Canada's visible minorities. By 2001, Arab women alone had a fertility rate greater than 2.1: At 2.2, it had declined from 2.5 in 1996. The fertility rates of immigrant women quickly approach the Canadian average. Fertility rates for other visible-minority women in Canada: Chinese, 1.2; Latin American, 1.8; black, 1.7; Japanese, 1.1; Korean: 1.3. The average: 1.4 -- lower even than the all-Canadian rate.

As noted here earlier this week, South Korea's fertility rate has fallen to 1.0, the lowest national rate in the world. The country will now spend $35-billion (U.S.) to persuade women to have more babies. For the first time, the Planned Parenthood Federation will promote procreation. At this rate, perhaps it will soon be acceptable once again to believe that people should multiply, and fill the Earth.

nreynolds@xplornet.com

I have a bit more faith in immigration IF we adopt a sensible immigration policy aimed at getting 500,000 people a year (twice the current number) from, almost exclusively, China and India.  The low fertility rate for (especially Chinese) immigrant women reflects that fact that the majority are in dual income families.  That’s fine, so long as they have one child per family; we just need to recruit more and more of those families.  I agree with Reynolds about not recruiting immigrants from ”high fertility” countries – we need sophisticated, easy to integrate immigrants.  The ”high fertility” countries are, by and large, home to unsophisticated, hard/impossible to integrate immigrants.

We have economic room for many, many more productive immigrants.  The question is; do we have the social room for them?  I fear not; if my fears are well founded then Reynolds is right and, in a few generations, Canada will be nothing but a memory and a remote resource and recreation base for Asians.

 

[Long in the tooth]

China is far from an option as their population is set to implode like a fusion bomb.  By 2020 there will be 1 billion chinese, but only 400 million females and 300 million males with no chance of a (monogamous) wife.  What did they expect with a one child policy?

We could be looking at the first case of voluntary extinction.... isn't that a cheery thought?

 

[MarkOttawa]

It's interesting that some of the best commentary in the Globe is buried in the Business section where far fewer people will read it, e.g.:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070118/RCONFERENCE18/Business/business/business/4/4/7/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060919.RREGULY19%2FTPStory%2FBusiness&ord=970248&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060217.wxrjobs17%2FBNStory%2FBusiness%2Fhome&ord=971106&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Worn Out Grunt: Russian and India have problems too.

Growing Old the Hard Way: China, Russia, India: Living longer but poorer
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2912391.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sell your home now and start renting before prices start to fall.

We don't have to be poorer, but people who've grown accustomed to creating work for themselves in the public service might find themselves learning more directly productive trades.

Good news is that GHG emissions will fall.

 

[Kirkhill]

Three other options -

Start having more babies

Encourage girls to get pregnant young so they can have their babies early and still have a life (that is a more traditional pattern)

Figure out how to make abortion unnecessary by removing the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood (not a western problem but still a problem in traditional cultures) and by removing the financial and career burden on women that results from carrying a child to term.

Some might argue that this will encourage more girls to be less careful and have more babies...............

Then the next problem to solve will be how do you bring them all to a productive adulthood - and that seems to be a work in progress with the kids we currently have.

 

[tomahawk6]

The French have long had a policy where French women are paid a monthly sum for each child.This doesnt apply to immigrants in France.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

If we redirected money from all those "unnecessary" social programs (The little pet project things that nobody knows about until somebody complains their funding was taken away) towards an awareness campaign, increased education capacity (when the numbers start to go up after the initial drop), an improved foster care system (some people may realize that they didn't really want a kid, maybe because they were too young), and then throw in some tax releif we could possibly effectively combat this (best word for it I think) epidemic.

 

[a_majoor]

This is actually "old" news, the problem is more acute in Europe since the population crash is predicted to begin @ 2020. Mark Steyn has written about this as well.

The problem of population crash seems well established in most wealthy Western nations, the United States seems to be the notable exception (although even there the "native" population seems to be just at the replacement rate, with population increase coming from immigration). Why this should be so is probably "cultural", that is to say some factor(s) in contemporary Western culture discourages the idea of families, which is very alarming considering families are the very foundation of human civilization.

One interesting conjecture is that the western families which are reproducing at a positive rate usually belong to conservative religious groups or other groups with more traditional (or Social Conservative, if you will) values. In a generation, Liberals and Socialists will become a rapidly shrinking minority within the shrinking population of the West, while the growing portion of the Western population will not take kindly to being the resource and recreation base of Asia.

One other conjecture; the population of the West recovered from the "Dark Ages" and grew in strength, agricultural and trade wealth during the last period of Global Warming during the European Warm Period from @800-1300AD. Maybe global warming will help our descendants as well.

 

[Timmy!]

How do you get 1.5 babies per woman? I am still looking for this half bath in my house.    ??? I found one full.....

 

[a_majoor]

Mark Steyn's book "America alone" is built around the demographic threat:

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/?p=694

OS Bookshelf - America Alone-The End Of The World As We Know It By Mark Steyn

When I first heard Mark Steyn speak I thought to myself “This man is going to get knocked off by a hit man!” If that wasn’t enough to get me hooked then perhaps it was the ease with which he lays out facts and cuts through the politically correct haze most other writers/speakers are surrounded with.

In America Alone-The End Of The World As We Know It, Steyn lays out the demographic facts that show how America (yes, Alone) is the only nation in the free world producing enough offspring to sustain its’ own existence. Italy and Russia sitting at 1.2 and Spain producing a paltry 1.1 children per two adults and even Canada producing only 1.5. When the requirement for sustained population is 2.1 (when mortality is taken into account) the only nation in the free world producing enough offspring to sustain itself without immigration is the United States.

But Steyn points out that when we look at other parts of the world the story is quite different. Niger - 7.46, Mali - 7.42, Somalia - 6.76, Afghanistan - 6.69, Yemen - 6.58. To quote Mr. Steyn:

Notice what those nations have in common? Starts with an I, and ends with a slam. As in: slam dunk.

But Steyn doesn’t just look at the demographics of declining western culture and skyrocketing Islamism. He addresses the demasculation of society and the culture of bleeding heartism that lead to statements by people like Osama bin Laden that say America is weak. She has no teeth. It isn’t the military he is talking about. It is the soft underbelly in our society that sees fit to give in to every whining small L liberal.

Whatever your political stripes, this book is an eye opener and a must read in my opinion. After you read it, make sure you give the book to a friend and make them read it too.

ADDENDUM: If you don’t have time to read the book, watch Mark Steyn’s speech to the Heritage Foundation by clicking here.

 

[Royal]

I hear what is being said.  But how accurate are the numbers?  As a society we are definitly weak: Merry Holidays, not Christmas.  Look at the amount of crime that goes undetected/unreported becasue we are afraid of retribution and bringing attention to ourselves.  Society is weak, but the underbelly of our society (the criminal element) is strong.  Illegal immigrants, sweatshops, all fly nder the radar, within the underbelly.

I thought that when we started the whole mail-order-brides for imigration concept (and those guys make a pretty coin) that we were fostering legal imigartion and population growth?

 

[a_majoor]

A revier from Daimnation!

www.damianpenny.com/archived/009026.html&title=Steyn%20savaged

Steyn savaged

Johann Hari didn't think much of America Alone, even going so far as to call it "The Protocols of the Elders of Mohammed." Hari's best argument is that even if Steyn's demographic predictions are accurate (Hari rejects them), he assumes they will continue indefinitely:

    ...To fulfil his headline predictions, Steyn needs to turn 20 million European Muslims into more than 200 million European Muslims - in just 13 years. Only Fallacci's rats could reproduce so rapidly. Steyn even admits that the history of demographic predictions is hysterically inept, noting that "most twenty-year projections... are laughably speculative, and thus most doomsday scenarios are too" - before offering his own.

    Europe's real demographics are described in a similar book by a slightly more scupulous author. Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of the Washington Times and DC grande dame, last year wrote 'The West's Last Chance' predicting an enfeebled Europe would collapse before the Muslim hoardes. But after studying the figures, he admitted: “For almost every Western European country, their populations do not even begin to decline until at least 2025... In fact, for the next few decades, they continue to go up, even without any new immigration… The numbers only begin to move decidedly down about fifty years from now.” So for Steyn's predictions to hold true, the current Muslim birthrate needs to hold steady through five decades of life in the West, all Muslims have to become communitarian Islamists bent on sharia law, and there must be no natalist policies from European governments in the meanwhile. [via Andrew Sullivan]

My own (much more positive) review of America Alone is here. Hopefully, Steyn will respond on his website. Over to you, Mark...

The timeline is longer than Styn suggests, and there is a chance that Ralph Peter's prediction of Europeans reverting to form and imposing some sort of Fascist "Final Solution" on thier unassimilated populations may become the real wave of the future instead. (Of course that might trigger a nuclear exchange between France and Iran....)

The future is very uncertain, as it always was

 

[time expired]

This is terrible news,the forest will spread, there will be fish in the rivers and oceans,the buffalo
will reappear on the plains and the population could get down to a level that this planet can support.
IMHO we have been trying to scr$§w with Mother Nature for far too long,an overpopulation in any
specias results in fighting,killing of own young,drop in birth rate,all this without a feminist movement,
and usually results in a collapse of the population.So I think this is great news unless you happen
to be deeply involved in the stock market.
      Remember its not nice to fool with Mother Nature.
                                              Regards

 

[reccecrewman]

With the costs associated with children, is anyone actually surprised this is occuring?  If you have 1, 2 or worse, 3 or 4 children, the financial drain on the family is brutal..........  The cost of daycare so the mother can go back to work more or less eats her entire paycheque.  Speaking on my own experience, my wife makes about $400 every two weeks.  The cost of our daycare for that two week period is $350.00 - $35.00 a day.  That's alot of hours worked by her for what? One dinner out every two weeks.  The government really should be moving on a plan for daycare similar to Quebec's to encourage re-population. 

Regards

 

[Roy Harding]

With the costs associated with children, is anyone actually surprised this is occuring?  If you have 1, 2 or worse, 3 or 4 children, the financial drain on the family is brutal..........  The cost of daycare so the mother can go back to work more or less eats her entire paycheque.  Speaking on my own experience, my wife makes about $400 every two weeks.  The cost of our daycare for that two week period is $350.00 - $35.00 a day.  That's alot of hours worked by her for what? One dinner out every two weeks.  The government really should be moving on a plan for daycare similar to Quebec's to encourage re-population. 

Regards

Well - we had three children (early '80s - when I was still a Private - LONG before a Pte's pay was anything close to livable), and did the same math (although daycares, as such, were just beginning to exist at that time - our math more involved stay-at-home Mom's offering babysitting).  Our conclusion?  It wasn't worth it for Wendy to work.  She became a stay-at-home Mom (occasionally offering babysitting services.)  She remained such until our youngest was in school - she then went on to a full-time career in the CF.

I understand (mostly through friends who have grand-kids) that many young couples today are making similar choices, for similar reasons.  There is (in my OWN, UNSUPPORTED) opinion a side benefit to this - kid's end up having a parent at home during their formative years.

I can understand why a Mom would want to remain in the workforce even when the math is against it - professional currency, retention of skills, etcetera.  Each couple has to make their own choice on the matter - it's a very personal decision.


Roy

 

[a_majoor]

The government really should be moving on a plan for daycare similar to Quebec's to encourage re-population. 

The record of socialist jurisdictions ranging from Sweden to Quebec seems to indicate that governments cannot induce population growth, and indeed that cradle to grave socialism discourages families. The only socialist program that I can think of off the top of my head to encourage population growth was run by Nazi Geremany in the 1930's, where the object was to marry SS men to suitably "Aryan" women and create a master race of genetically pure "Ubermensch". I doubt that would go over very well today.

As for large families, in my experience, people who would be classed as "Socially conservative" have larger families regardless of the financial strain. In another generation or two, people of the "liberal" persuasion will have bred themselves out of existence.........

 

[Dale Denton]

I don't understand the worry and speculation. Who would base any piece of information on a prediction for the year 2030. It's so far away, how can you make any speculation of what would happen in 23 years from now? Theres so much time in between now and 2030 that how can you not calculate the fact that things would be as we predict. Nobody can make any accurate prediction of what would happen. Who knows? We might get a baby boom sometime between now and then.

 

[a_majoor]

Yes demographics is a descriptive science, but has some precision built into it by the simple fact that humans need at least 14 years or more to become sexualy mature and able to have children. Even if every single Canadian family had another child right now, we would not see a further change in the population from this until 2021.

 

[CougarKing]

S_Baker,

Bots*? Hehehe...You must mean boys...hehehe 

Well one does not need to be conservative to be hardworking...

Here's a related article...

Just because a nation may have decreasing number of native-born people doesn't necessarily mean it's in decline. An immigrant nation can still be a strong one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_re_ca/canada_immigration_growth

Immigration fuels Canada's growth Tue Mar 13, 6:18 PM ET

OTTAWA - Two-thirds of Canada's rapid population increase over the past five years came from immigration — a force that in coming decades will account for almost all of the country's growth, according to census figures released Tuesday.

Unlike the United States, where an influx of legal and illegal immigrants has fueled heated debate, there is little public discussion in Canada on the issue.

The data released by Statistics Canada show the country's population grew 5.4 percent, the highest rate among the Group of Eight industrial nations.

Among the G-8 countries, only the United States, at 5.0 percent, approached Canada's growth. France and Italy grew 3.1 percent and Britain 1.9 percent, while growth for Japan and Germany was near zero and Russia's population shrank 2.4 percent.

With births slowing, Canada is reaching a unique situation, said Laurent Martel, a Statistics Canada analyst. "We're heading towards a point where immigration will be the only source of growth in Canada," he said.

About 1.2 million new immigrants accounted for most of Canada's growth over the five years, far outpacing the addition of 400,000 native-born citizens, for a total population of 31.6 million.

Canada's net migration, per capita, is among the world's highest. It recorded an estimated net migration of 5.85 migrants per 1,000 population in 2006, compared to 3.18 migrants per 1,000 population for the U.S., according to the        CIA World Factbook.

"We have not strategically thought through how we should manage our largest single source of population for net growth," Michael Bloom, a vice president with the        Conference Board of Canada, told The Canadian Press.

Canada's birth rate is about 1.5 children per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

The country's shift toward immigration as the only source of growth is still a couple of decades away. That point will not be reached until after 2030, when the peak of the baby boomers born in the 1950s and early 1960s reach the end of their lives.

"You're going to see an increase in the number of deaths in Canada, and the number of deaths will exceed the number of births — so natural increase will become negative," said Martel. "The only factor of growth will then be immigration."