Ed Yong, ScienceBlogs, August 5, 2009
{snip}
But Mikko Myrskyla from the University of Pennsylvania thinks differently. He has found that the most developed countries have actually reversed their falling fertility rates, possibly by improving gender equality and making it easier for women to raise families while enjoying successful careers. The result is a graph that looks like a reverse tick, with a small upturn in fertility rate that only becomes evident when looking at data from the dawn of the 21st century. At the most advanced stages of development, it seems that babies make a comeback.
{snip}
{snip} Myrskyla’s data {snip} compared the fertility rates of 107 countries in 1975 with their scores on the Human Development Index—a measure of the level of development that takes into account life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living. He did the same for 140 countries in 2005.
In both years, Myrskyla found that the greater a country’s HDI score, the lower its fertility rates, but only up to a point. At scores of 0.9 or over (and the range goes from 0 to 1), the trend reverses so that women from the most developed countries have , on average, more babies. This trend only became obvious by looking at the more recent set of data for in 1975, no country had reached the stage of development where fertility rates pick up again. Then, the top score was 0.887, while Australia is currently in the lead with 0.966.
The upturn is small but significant. If a country’s HDI score is between 0.9 and 0.92 (as is the case for South Korea or Germany), the average fertility rate is low enough at 1.24 for the population to halve in size every 40-45 years. However, countries with the highest scores (including Australia and Scandinavia) have an average fertility rate of 1.89—not quite the replacement level, but close enough that small levels of migration can sustain the same population.
Myrskyla saw the same trend when he focused on individual countries over the last 30 years. There were a few exceptions but in general, as countries became more developed, babies came back into fashion. In the US, falling fertility reversed in 1976 at an HDI score of 0.881. In Norway, it happened in 1983, at a score of 0.892. Myrskyla reckons that the critical point is around 0.86—beyond this stage of development, an extra 0.25 points on the HDI score translates to roughly one extra baby for every woman.
The big question, of course, is what’s behind the reversal? It certainly seems to apply to a diverse set of cultures and the exceptions (including Japan, Canada and South Korea) are hardly that similar. Myrskyla thinks that high HDI scores reflect societal changes that make it easier for women to choose to have children. As equality becomes more strongly felt, women get a better education, earn more jobs and command higher salaries. That makes it easier for them to cope with the financial drain of children, and for them to successfully take time out of the rat race and re-enter later on.
It’s possible that rich east Asian countries like Japan and South Korea have failed to buck the fertility trend because they have failed to address the challenges of gender equality and work-family balance that other countries have begun to tackle. Still, that doesn’t explain Canada. In a related editorial, Shripad Tuljapurkar suggests that the HDI itself may be to blame. It doesn’t tell us anything about whether development affects men and women equally, and in that respect, the Gender Development Index (GDI) maybe a more useful measure.
All in all, Myrskyla’s results paint a slightly rosier outlook for much of the world. As he writes, “As long as the most developed countries focus on increasing the well-being of their citizens, and adequate institutions are in place, the analyses in this paper suggest that increases in development are likely to reverse fertility declines—even if we cannot expect fertility to rise again above replacement levels.” {snip}
[Editor’s Note: The abstract, full text, and PDF files for “Advances in development reverse fertility declines,” by Mikko Myrskylä, et al. are available here.
Original article
(Posted on August 6, 2009)
Comments
My theory is that most advanced countries are white, and almost all of the birthrate increase is therefore coming from non-white populations, domestic and immigrant.
As he writes, “As long as the most developed countries focus on increasing the well-being of their citizens, and adequate institutions are in place, the analyses in this paper suggest that increases in development are likely to reverse fertility declines—even if we cannot expect fertility to rise again above replacement levels.”
The answer is so simple that I can only conclude elitists choose not to acknowledge it. Simply grant incremental tax breaks with each additional child. That would encourage the best and brightest to have even more children. If someone could cut their tax bill by 40K by having a 3rd or 4th child you’d better believe they would.
Economists quickly observed that as (European) Nations industrialized, women spent more time working and it paid to have fewer children in crowded cities. The European fertility rate hit a zero-growth rate BEFORE WWI. The baby-boom after WWII was an aberration in the trend towards smaller families (again, in the west). As population growth slowed beneath the growth rate of capital, western societies became very wealthy. Of course this is a western phenomena and economists assumed (foolishly) that this pattern of industrialization and shrinking families would play out the same in the third world. Perhaps its time we adjust our models eh?
Our masters want it both ways. They want to race-replace us, swamp us via alien immigration on one hand, and on the other they want us to believe they want to save the environment.
Which is it?
I guess this is why Maester Gelbaum had to pay a bribe to the tune of 100 million (or somesuch astronomical figure) to the Sierra Club to keep them mum about the conflict between open borders and environmentalism (anti-sprawl, anti-population growth).
And now for the bad news: We are still being submerged by traditional cultures which have not discovered how to ignore obvious sex differences. In fact, at best “advanced” countries barely break even, according to the graph.
I think whites are finally starting to have more children in response to being swamped by all the colored peoples they see around them now.
Actually, as a matter of fact, this study may be on to something. Although non-white immigrants (and their descendants) obviously have more children than native European derived peoples, we must also look at one aberration from the usual Western model: Iceland.
Iceland, despite having a negligent non-white population (it has some Polish immigrants, and most of its non-whites are East Asian) had an above replacement fertility rate for the year 2008. Perhaps having non-whites in one’s community makes one less likely to have children (due to crime rates, assumably).
“Falling fertility rates mean ageing populations. That means that the country will be served a shrinking workforce, while having to pay greater healthcare costs due to rising levels of chronic disease and disability.”
The problems of an imbalance in age are far easier to solve than having a society that imports crime and poverty and eventual ethnic and racial conflicts.
The falling birth rate bogie man is a sham and has been overused by those advocating unchecked immigration.
It is the smaller, more homogeneous societies that will continue to endure while the most populous ones are fighting water and food wars, when they’re not fighting tribal battles for turf.
Japan, Europe and White America are the only groups to get it right. We have enough people for the time being. We don’t need any more for quite a while, at least not large numbers. Especially overcrowded Japan and parts of overcrowded Europe. In itself, population dropping is not a bad thing. It allows land to be reclaimed for wild lands, farming, etc. All a good thing. Besides, these kind of things go in cycles. If it ever got to the point where the population was dropping too fast, the solution is simple - just do what Russia did and pay people to have children. It works.
The real problem is people from the Third World - both those living there currently and those imported into Western countries. They have low human capital value, and reproduce far too quickly. Eventually, if this is allowed to continue, we will be overrun by them. How fast will this happen? That’s anyone’s guess. If we Whites increase our fertility to over replacement levels, that combined with Third World and minority overpopulation will make this a terrible world to live in. If we don’t increase our fertility, we will ultimately disappear, which would make this a terrible world to live in. If small pockets of Whites survive and geographically separate themselves, and have replacement-level fertility, and can somehow remain safe and isolated, it will still be a terrible world to live in, as they won’t have much freedom.
Seems to me the only answer is to deport illegals and keep them out, cut legal immigration to very low levels, eliminate foreign aid to Third World countries (of course, we’d have to become self-sufficient in natural resources we would get from them first), eliminate welfare, and make it easier and more cost-effective for Whites to reproduce. Does any of this sound realistic given today’s political climate, where we as a nation (though not Whites, at least not a majority) elected a black rock-star with little political experience as President of the United States? Where we reward under-performance or deadbeats and punish productive people and businesses? Where we promote people based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character? Nope, doesn’t look very likely to me.
“most advanced countries are white, and almost all of the birthrate increase is therefore coming from non-white populations, domestic and immigrant.”
An influx of non-whites provides an initial increase in the birth rate of white women too.
Fred #2, there is a Federal Child Tax Credit,which allows for an Income Tax Credit, for up to three children, in the home.
Also, my friend’s wife is on Disablity, and can’t work, but she has had her third baby, and Social Security Disability pays her an alotment, for each child she has had. She does have to keep a record of all the items that were purchased for the children, with that money, should Social Security ever ask to see it, but that is the least of her problems.
More families should take advantage of this program. It does not matter if you, or your wife is Disabled, because one regular income is now missing to support the family. And since we have paid into this System, all of our working lives, we should be able to apply for benefits, and get them, since Illegal Aliens are able to tap into this resource.
So people, those who can’t work, stay home, have babies, and be there all day to watch them, instead of handing them off to some Puerto Rican or Mexican Nanny, to raise them. Be involved in your childrens’ lives, and teach your children well.
As globalization removes jobs and opportunities from our economies, I see more educated women around me who are less interested in joining the rat race.
They seem enthusiastic about throwing their lot in with a traditional man, and making a go of family life.
This will become more dramatic as the world debt crisis shrinks the workforce. Just as feminism and the lure of careers caused a decline in childbirths in the West, a reduction in opportunities is the cause of increased fertility.
It is time we stop using the term “fertility rate” and use the term “birth rate” instead as we have always done. Using the term “fertility rate” is designed to give minorities the false impression that white women have become increasingly infertile because nature is extincting the white race. This is partly the reason behind the alien racial minorities swarming the white nation like ants on a candy bar…
I don’t know about you folks, but you couldn’t convince me, with all the terrifying prospects of the White race dying out, to not have kids. I am 23 years old, and should I come into the money tomorrow to do so, I would, within five years, have five blue eyed freckled children. I do not care about the environmental repercussions if we must compromise between them and our demographic nightmare; in fact, since we can speculate that low IQ non-Whites would be unable of even considering the concepts of “environmental concern”, it would be more beneficial to raise racially aware AND environmentally aware White children for all. Overpopulating non-white birthrates would mean far worse for Mother Nature.
I think the birth rate increase in these European nations is due to the indigenous Europeans themselves. The birth rate of the third-worlders is at a constant. It’s always high. So if there’s a new uptick, then it’s obviously Europeans.
#9 wrote “just do what Russia did and pay people to have children.”
Anonymous at 1:44 PM on August 7:
I would like to believe you’re right but I remember reading Italian government statistics showing immigration was the cause of the birth rate increasing from about 1.0 to 1.33. You have to remember that the nonwhite populations aren’t static and are increasing every year from immigration bringing in more fertile women. There was alot of celebration earlier last year when France finally reached replacement level fertility. However, closer inspection of the statistics show 1/4 of births are to muslims or blacks.
If a country’s HDI score is between 0.9 and 0.92 (as is the case for South Korea or Germany ), the average fertility rate is low enough at 1.24 for the population to halve in size every 40-45 years. However, countries with the highest scores (including Australia and Scandinavia ) have an average fertility rate of 1.89—not quite the replacement level, but close enough that small levels of migration can sustain the same population.
Er, Australia and Scandinavia are a lot less crowded than Germany and Korea.
Iceland, despite having a negligent [sic] non-white population… had an above replacement fertility rate for the year 2008… —Bryan
And that goes many times over for Iceland and Japan. Nothing is said (at least in these excerpts) about relative density.
Incidentally, “Mikko Myrskylä” translates (roughly) from the Finnish as “Hurricane Mike”, “Myrskylä” meaning “storm-place”. But I’ll get offline now, as there’s a wicked T-storm outside my window at the moment…
It is from CIA website.
http://tinyurl.com/3yur88
I noticed S. Korea has the 6th lowest birth rate in this world… (I thought it had the 4th lowest) the birth rate in Korea is even lower than that of Japan.
I know everyone is going to ask me, “why is the birth rate so low in Korea?”
I will try my best to answer… but I am sorry, I do not know exactly. I do not have any siblings either. I am sorry but I was rarely curious or interested about why Korea has such a low fertility rate. My apologies.
But if I could tell you as much as I can…. or remember…
Around the year I was born,(1980s) the birthrate in Korea was unnecessarily high and the Korean government advised its people to have fewer children through the media. Both my parents have 4~5 siblings. There were short amusing video clips on TV that said, “If you do not keep track of how many children you will have, you might not be able to avoid going bankrupt”
Of course I asked my parents once, why did you decide to have only one child?(me) and they told me they hated not receiving enough care and affection from their parents while they were growing up.
What I noticed from white Canadians around me is the fertility rate among white Canadian families varies. There are definitely a few families who only have one child, and there are a few families who have 3 children or more. The most common number of children I have noticed in white families in Canada is two. You might say it is a little bit silly but, I also noticed that families with two kids usually have kids of the same gender. In other words, most of the time, it is either girl-girl or guy-guy. I have not seen a lot of white families with one girl-one boy.
I can also think of the reason(s) some African countries have the highest fertility rates. It is very unfortunate. There are constant civil wars in some countries in Africa and consequently it is not very uncommon for children to die during the civil wars. and the families feel they better have a lot of children so at least…
Also, the medical care in some parts of some of those countries is neither perfect nor enough nor affordable for the entire population and that also causes a number of children to die very young. That also gives parents in Africa one more reason to have many children…. and various types of life-threatening diseases including sexual diseases is not uncommon in Africa….
7 — Bryan wrote at 9:22 PM on August 6:
Actually, as a matter of fact, this study may be on to something. Although non-white immigrants (and their descendants) obviously have more children than native European derived peoples, we must also look at one aberration from the usual Western model: Iceland.
Iceland, despite having a negligent non-white population (it has some Polish immigrants, and most of its non-whites are East Asian) had an above replacement fertility rate for the year 2008. Perhaps having non-whites in one’s community makes one less likely to have children (due to crime rates, assumably).
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_6.png
Iceland has the highest rate of single mothers in the world. This is basically women mating hypergamously. Aka with thugs, or if not that, at least with men who have no interest in raising the child. And of course, all other men, the ‘betas’ get to graciously raise the child instead via punitive taxes for our happy irresponsible single mom.
Also read “Sexual Utopia in Power”http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf
If youre looking for a model for western culture - Iceland is not it. Just because its all white - doesnt mean it should be emulated. Im willing to bet it will collapse even before the States will.
Please remember that all this nonsense we hear about the population replacement index is total hogwash. Cultures do not die out if their birth rate goes below a certain index. Red China has had a one child per family policy for decades and I don’t see them fading away.
This propaganda is being disseminated by corporate America (the Globalists) to justify allowing hordes of aliens from the third world to flood America. The corporate elite sees these alien interlopers as new consumers and if they could force congress to import all of the people from Red China and India, they would…
I find it interesting that Mexican Americans actually have higher birthrates than Mexicans. Some would say that women’s education is what makes the difference, but I’m not so sure. Is that the case in Mexico? I think it may be a combination of social welfare benefits, religious beliefs and faith in a better future for your child that drives fertility. Much of the increase in European birthrates is due to immigrants—particularly from Muslim and African countries. Perhaps, they see the better future…for them.
One factor not mentioned much is housing affordability. Whites tend to have more babies when housing is comparatively cheap and fewer when housing is expensive.
The collapse in birthrates in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 90s was partly due to a shortage of housing(they had to que for houses as well as food during the communist era).
Australia is doing quite well in the fertility stakes. Women are having children at a relatively young age (not waiting until they are in their 30s, as we’re so often told), and they are often having at least two, and quite often more. The number of families with 3 or 4 children is quite significant.
