David R. Francis, Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 2009
{snip}
But notions that population growth is a boon for prosperity—or that national political success depends on it—are “Ponzi demography,” says Joseph Chamie, former director of the population division of the United Nations.
The profits of growth go to the few, and everyone else picks up the tab.
{snip}
In the rich, developed nations, the average age is rising at the fastest pace ever, UN demographers note. Today they have 264 million aged 60 or over. By 2050, that number is expected to rise to 416 million.
By that time, the world’s population should stabilize, if UN predictions are correct. The population surge in poor countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East would be offset by declines in much of the developed world.
Some nations facing decline are fighting back with incentives for families to have more children. The United States is bucking the trend with its relatively high immigration rate.
Growth, whether through immigration or natural increase, is a plus for some groups. For business, it means a boost in the demand for products. It also means a surge in low- and high-skilled workers, which can keep a lid on wage pressures. Religious and ethnic groups want more immigrants of their own faith and ethnicity to raise their political and social clout. The military regards young immigrants as potential recruits.
But the public pays a cost for a bigger population.
Mr. Chamie speaks of more congestion on highways, more farmland turned into housing developments, more environmental damage, including the output of pollutants associated with climate change.
In the current healthcare debate in the US, one costly question is whether the insurance covers some 11 million illegal immigrants.
Of course, there are also costs for countries with stable or declining populations.
They will need to spend more looking after older citizens and, yes, some industries like housing will shrink. But governments won’t have to spend as much on children. And any labor shortage would fade if increasingly healthy older people worked an extra year or two before retiring to maintain their standard of living.
{snip}
The goal should be gradual population stabilization, Chamie says. The costs of an aging but stable population would be more manageable than those of a population boom.
{snip}
A stable or falling population, he says, “is not a disaster. It is a success.”
Original article
(Posted on August 19, 2009)
Comments
One thing that you may notice about all of the knuckleheads that think that unlimited population growth is just great is that they usually are filthy rich. If we become another Bangladesh, India, or China, it will not affect their personal lives negatively in any way.If everyone else has to live like an ant, so what? As long as they have theirs, who cares? We will just have to get used to having a lot of older people if the lifespan continues to rise. The eventual cessation of population growth at a given level is not an option, but it is an eventual inevitability.Is there an argument against that?
” By 2050, that number is expected to rise to 416 million.”
Anybody that doesn’t understand that a stable or slightly falling population is good and offers excellent opportunities for self sufficiency and minimum problems with homogeneous societies has been fooled by the greed mongers and power moguls.
The goal should be gradual population stabilization , Chamie says. The costs of an aging but stable population would be more manageable than those of a population boom.
And the Nobel Prize for Admittance of the Obvious goes to…Mr Chamie!
Any American Renaissance reader could’ve told Mr. Chamie that - without the 1965 U.S. Immigration Act, U.S.-border-illegal-immigration, and European governments looking to their former colonies and/or the Middle East for 1. Voting proles or 2. Wage-cutting proles - the population of the West would have ‘stabilised’ decades ago .
But then again, I suppose Mr. Chamie would’ve lost his nice job at the U.N. pointing out such an obvious solution to the Leftists (who ‘needed’ the votes of anti-white, self-interested minorities) and the Corporatists (who ‘needed’ the wage-reducing of impoverished, Third-World minorities).
I suppose the next thing to come out will be a minor blurb in the newspaper by a ‘former U.N. Controller for Indigenous Affairs’ (or whatever the equivalent is) belatedly admitting that - contrary to popular belief - Europeans are indigenous to their respective European nations, and are being economically, socially, politically, and culturally dispossessed and cleansed from said nations.
Funny that these kind of statements will never come out when it would’ve lost them their jobs.
Would this UN “expert” be nearly so blase about population losses if most of the nations that are losing population were non-White? His attitude seems to be, “The fewer Europeans and White Americans, the better!” Why is it OK for Russia’s population to be plummeting, when one big reason is that Russian men’s heavy consumption of alcohol and tobacco has pushed their life expectancy down to the lowest in the advanced world? That’s not a “healthy” society! Or that German couples are having fewer and fewer babies, with a possible factor being “guilt” about Hitler, the Nazis, and their racial policies? That is not a “healthy” attitude for the population of a country to have, either.
I’m reminded of an article I read in a sports magazine a year or two ago, bemoaning the fact that Hispanics are taking over so much of major league baseball, with blacks getting a smaller slice of the pie, so to speak, as a result. Where was people’s concern when blacks were driving Whites out of baseball, wholesale? Only we racial realists cared then!
White people should ignore this. A falling population will inevitably create a labor vacuum that will be filled by immigrants. There is no getting around it. If white people don’t have babies to take care of them when they are old, they will have mestizos taking care of them.
And like all ponze schemes, it’s going to reach a point where it collapses.
The only question is when.
Unlimited growth is a ponzi scheme. No nation can survive that and remain a first world nation.
I hope some interview TV shows like Lou Dobbs give this guy some air time.
I like the idea of elderly people working a few extra years before retiring. At that age the thoughts of these people often go to the well-being of the next generation and grandchildren. I know many are horrified by the immigration mess that their progeny will face. If extra work was presented as a national duty that all should do I’m sure many would be happy to help ensure a good future for the following generations.
One of the major reasons a population becomes wealthier is when one man is able to do more work, and thus work more efficiently. The price of food in this country is very low in real terms because one farmer feeds so many more people today than did a farmer in 1900. The number of cars a given number of men can build in a day has risen dramatically. When a population stabilizes or falls slightly men are encouraged to become creative and do things more efficiently. If the amount of work a man does in a day goes up so does the amount of money he can earn. The Japanese have excelled at robotics because of their aging population. They allow few immigrants. The Japanese must be creative. And although their economy has been in the doldrums for quite a while I am convinced that their industries will eventually put them on top again - with their people and culture intact.
The American model has been to bring in low cost labor rather than innovate, a very 19th century economic model. We have also decided to move most of manufacture ring jobs over seas to cut labor cost (rather than improve efficiency here). Wealth is not money, wealth is what you produce and what you add value to. Iron ore in the ground is a resource but not wealth. Refined iron is wealth. Turn it into steel and you have added value. turn it into a tricycle and you added even more wealth. Real wealth. Wealth that can be shared by all.
Henry Ford I once said “The job of the Ford Motor Company is to build cars and employ men, not make money.” But by building a good car and employing men he became wealthy and provided a decent income for thousands of Ford employees. Now “making money” is all about Wall Street paper trading schemes, not real work. Globalization and mass-migration mean one thing: a robber baron Society with a few families at the top and most people peasants at the bottom and no middle class.
Negative population growth is the mechanism they use to enable them to justify mass immigration.
What they do not want to tell you is their motivation and this is to ensure that white become a minority.
Dumbing down the population, makes for easier control over ones subjects.
America has become what it used to fight. America is becoming more communist that what the USSR used to be.
There is ample proof of this, if you’d only open your eyes.
Today America is sinking like a stone, because the masses have become stupid TV coach potatoes and they do not realize or even care what is happening.
Communism is about the lower class (the proletariat, which is the people) and the rulers (like your banking elite)
The proletariat, the people are all equal, nameless, faceless numbers.
The are identical. Can you not see the hidden agenda of multiculturalism and egalitarianism????
Can you not see that this manipulated credit crises is to get rid of the middle class?
It is good that somebody mentions the obvious - that fewer people will allow more resources per person and a higher quality of life for all. We don’t need more people in the world, but we do need *better* people. And in terms of their intellect and character, despite all their faults, Whites, on average, are superior at producing pleasant societies. After all, why else would so many non-Whites wish to live with us?
However, Francis does not mention that debt-based money systems require exponential growth in order to prevent collapse (so that new loans can be continually taken out to repay the old). Creating a stable society will require a new banking system that is stable even in the absence of growth.
Peejay in Frisco wrote:
“One thing that you may notice about all of the knuckleheads that think that unlimited population growth is just great is that they usually are filthy rich. If we become another Bangladesh, India, or China, it will not affect their personal lives negatively in any way.”
That’s what many of them *think* Peejay, but most all of them are wrong. As the society crumbles under crushing poverty, they eventually fall too for the foundation of their business is their society and their customers. There are probably a great many American businessmen, who once enthusiastically supported non-White immigration thinking they would get cheap labor and more customers, but now realize it was a horrible mistake as they now have to spend much money to be locked behind a gated community, endure an ever increasing tax load, and constantly worry that they will lose it all in some sort of revolution. Not to mention the fact that unexpected new competition took away whatever gains they made. There are those few at the very top who might endure by fleeing to some private island, but they would never be able to experience the warmth of middle class society. They would have to live alone, in constant fear of the unhappy masses.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Our existence and happiness depends on that of others. Some people are incapable of learning this simple and profound truth.
The fact is that if you actually care to look at individual nations, high population growth is almost always associated with poverty, mass unemployment, destitution and a general national malaise.
this time of year new students register in schools. visit an urban school or a suburban school near a big city. what do you see? hispanic mamas with six or seven babies and small kids dragging along. more latino kids in school, needing language and special ed services. whites pay for this. of course the school can’t ask if these breeders are legally in the US. the education system will crash along with the health care system because keeping these fertile producers out of public health is like keeping termites out of wood.
“By that time [2050], the world’s population should stabilize, if UN predictions are correct. The population surge in poor countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East would be offset by declines in much of the developed world.”
In plain English this means: There’ll be far more of them, and far fewer of us.
Oh, so that’s OK then!
It’s revealing that the issue is initially framed in terms of “world” population, as if this is the only significant figure. It’s also revealing how much trust is placed in the likely reliability of “UN predictions”. Does anybody here know how accurate they have been in the past? Me neither, but I suspect not.
There is no suggestion, incidentally, that the “population surge in poor countries” will cease, merely that it will be “offset” by “declines in much of the developed world” (i.e. those parts of it still inhabited by indigenous whites), which we may therefore assume to be ongoing and incremental.
Stable poulations are fine if you do not allow immigration to swamp the stable population. But, that means some services become more expensive such as work usually done by immigrants and teenagers will have to pay older people more to do the work. But, that will be more than offset as houses become available from deceased that are not being replaced. (When your parents die and leave you their estate to split with one sibling wealth can be handed down and accrued).America would be just fine with a population of 200 million whites. As Long as you do not allow 100 million multicolored in the back door breeding at a far faster rate.
I say, those populations who have demonstrated their ability to run successful societies should be encouraged to have the most children while those populations who continuously come up with unsuccessful societies should be encouraged to curtail their populations. This is very important for the good of the world in the future. Thus by the above criteria, Whites and East Asians should have the most children while blacks and Muslims the least with all the others in between. But today in reality the fertility rate on the ground are exactly the other way round with blacks and Muslims having the most babies, Whites and East Asians the least with the rest in between. The future of mankind looks bleak.
The idea that America needs 300 million or 500 million or 1 billion people is a lie. The USA could survive with just 1 million people, as long as we produced something we could sell, such as timber, minerals, fish, agricultural products, etc. Note that England only had about 17 million people at the start of the Victorian Age, when that great nation came to “Rule the World” The UK now has 60 million people and massive immigration, and look at where they are now — a second-rate disaster.
sofita (#5) said: White people should ignore this. A falling population will inevitably create a labor vacuum that will be filled by immigrants.
Wrong. Immigration is not inevitable — it is only the knee-jerk reaction of the lazy. Historically, labor shortages have led to higher wages and the invention of labor-saving devices. Gutenberg’s original printing press was a result of the Black Death pandemic, which killed 1/3 or more of all Europeans. There simply weren’t enough literate people left to transcribe books by hand. When Japan faced a nursing shortage, it did not import Third World nurses; it invented robot nurses instead. Thank God at least one people refuse to let foreigners pollute their country, culture and heritage.
Here at home, a mechanical picker to harvest citrus fruits has been invented. However, no grower will buy one, as it’s cheaper to import illiterate foreign labor. Deport the foreigners and the growers will have to use the machines, to the advantage of everyone.
Supposedly the ancient Romans knew about hydraulic power, but never used it for anything other than kids’ toys. The reason: an endless supply of slave labor to do the grunt work.
If you really want to see the corrupting influence of cheap labor, watch the 1966 film The Sand Pebbles “coolies” doing all the sailors’ work (even shaving them), the crew become indolent and pretty much forget how to do what they were trained to do.
The bottom line: Abundant cheap labor impoverishes everyone, encourages sloth and stifles innovation. Necessity truly is the mother of invention.
Well said Rebelcelt. In certain European countries, like Italy in particular, where property often stays within the family for decades or centuries, a falling population would mean an improved quality of life for the younger generation. Right now young people in Italy have the worst of both worlds — a geriatric society with sky-high housing costs.
Italy would still be densely populated at 35 million, but with a lot more living space for everyone, which might make the birth rate eventually climb back up within a generation or two, etc.
One more thing, young white families will not want their children to live in a multiracial hell, thus accelarating the fall even more.
All the resources wasted on colored people could have been used to help young white families.
Suicide, autodestruction.
Anyone believing the rantings of the population-growth cheap-labor crown need look at the “success” that it brought to, Mexico, China, India, Haiti, middle east, Africa and others.
when I was growing up in a beautiful, old, civilized small-town suburb of Boston, no one ever said that the US was “missing 120 million” people and that if we couldn’t find them, we would be DOOMED!!!!
No one in small town New England desperately missed having Arabs and Mexicans and Pakistanis around.
A nice house in this idyllic paradise cost ca 40 k, and was within reach of any hard-working, competent middle-class family.
Now a house costs 1.5 mil + in the same town, which is an enclave of rich people.
Our corporate oligarchy wants open borders & mass immigration, and the crazy leftists are their pawns (but would never have achieved the revolution without their corporate backers).
Population growth is a catastrophe in every respect, the US was was a pretty nice place at 200 mil, now its a mess.
The world would be better off with 2 bil instead of 8, and Europeans are happier living among their own kind, and would be even IF the economic consequences were somehow (????) negative (which they are NOT).
The whitest state in the US is Vermont:
What everyone seems to have missed is that 1sr world countries don’t have a labour shortage at all. In fact we have a labour SURPLUS as evidenced by huge numbers on the dole of which I might add immigrants and their descendents are vastly over represented.
How is it that on the one hand, liberals insist we caanot do without immigrants to pay for the old but on the other hand liberals insist we aren’t doing enough to help these immigrants find work against the “crushing odds of an institutionally racist country” (not to mention the cost of them being unemployed in the first place AND translating housing benefit forms into umpteen different languages etc etc etc)
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 read like they were written in AR.
As for the subject matter, assuming that white nations were homogeneously white, I would see no problem at all with a slight and steady population decline. I don’t think it would affect economic output or the flow of invention or innovation, because those things always come from a intellectual coterie anyway, which would not get much smaller (if at all) with a declining population.
People can talk about how great a stable or slight population decline would be for the economy all they want. But it’s not working out like that now is it? In reality, the little comfy nest you’ve built by not having children is being enjoyed by immigrants. How’s that working out for ya? Yeah, yeah blame it on immigration all you want. But the truth is printed in big bold letters: IF YOU FAIL TO FILL THE LAND WITH YOUR CHILDREN THEN SOMEONE ELSE WILL.
If in the not so distant future, there is a war between America and another country, like India or China, hypothetically… Will the U.S. send an army of old men into combat?
Western nations need to have more and more children, because the fact that people now live longer, that’s a good thing but there are some abilities that an ageing population will lose, like it or not. We’re not immortals, forever young and strong!
Western nations WERE stabilizing and reducing their populations. There was no need for anyone to set any policies. All governments had to do was to leave their subjects alone and police the borders. That was all.
Instead, governments just had to interfere. Now look at the mess we’re in.
François wrote at 12:17 AM on August 23: “If in the not so distant future, there is a war between America and another country, like India or China, hypothetically… Will the U.S. send an army of old men into combat?”
I dare say that our immense arsenal of weapons of mass destruction would depopulate Red China and India overnight, ergo a numerically small military is more than sufficient to defend America against any real foreign military threats. The congress will never again attempt to draft young Americans to fight a bogus war on foreign soil, because our members of congress would be the first casualties…
The communist Chinese have had a one-child policy in effect for decades and I don’t see it having a negative impact on them. It is the rest of the third-world that irresponsibly grossly overpopulates itself and threatens our global resources. This is why India is poised to overtake Red China as the world’s most populated nation.
