Demographic winter causes deadly children shortage, but – more correctly – it is the other way around. Other people’s money is not the only thing that socialism runs out of.
Planting the seeds of a demographic winter
Robert Knight – Guest Columnist – 5/14/2008 2:10:00 PM
Did you know that planting a tree won’t save the earth? You’ve got to plant 483 trees just to offset your household’s carbon footprint. And that’s just for two people.
We know this because the Washington Post Home section on May 8 featured a cover story encouraging folks to plant trees while sternly warning them that this won’t help much because people are a cancer on the planet.
Okay, they didn’t quite put it that way, but it would be hard to miss the message. A graphic with 483 little green trees illustrates this stat from the EPA: “A two-person household is responsible for releasing 41,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To offset that, each household would have to plant 483 trees and let them grow for 10 years.”
If a two-person household is that bad, what does that make families with children? Environmental criminals, at the least, and maybe earth wreckers.
Before giving us tips on tree planting, Post writer Adrian Higgins exudes the fumes of global warming hysteria: “Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased by a third since the start of the industrial revolution, due mostly to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, and that buildup has been linked to global warming.”
Think about this for a minute. The industrial revolution revved up around 1850 or so, and with all the population growth and industrial production over the last 158 years, carbon dioxide has increased by only a third? He does not mention that this constitutes only a microscopic percentage of the entire atmosphere encircling the earth.
Could this mean that people are not really a threat to the planet after all? That we can get on with planting trees because … they’re pretty?
We ought to be focusing on a much scarier, and likelier, picture of the near future than the specter of too many people breathing, eating burgers and committing other random, senseless environmental atrocities. The really frightening future is a human race that is quickly depopulating.
Demographic winter causes deadly children shortage
Following the last paragraph of the quoted excerpt, Robert Knight listed a few of the consequences of the beginning of demographic winter, shown in the following. I inserted a few remarks (in brackets [and in green font], to indicate some of the ‘progress’ the onset of demographic winter made during the last decade, with respect to the factors listed by Robert Knight):
- 70 countries [119 countries by 2017 1], including virtually all of Europe [all of Europe by 2017 1], are now below replacement birth-rate levels.
[Birth rates or Total Fertility Rates (TFRs) are not the sole factors that affect population growth rates. People live longer, their lifespans increase. That affects mortality rates, which must be subtracted from the birth rates. Then it is necessary to add net-migration rates. Virtually all developed nations adopted massive population transfers from under-developed nations – trough illegal and legal immigration – to make up for their birth dearth. The sum of those three rates permits the calculation of the population growth rate. In 2017, there were 39 countries with shrinking populations. 2]
- Russia’s current population of 140 million [in 2017: 142,257,519 (July 2017 est.)] will decline to 70 million by 2045 if current trends continue. [By 2017, Russia’s population had increased by 2.3 million during the preceding decade. 3] The economic and political consequences would be staggering.
[Russia’s population growth during the last decade works out to an average population growth rate of 0.16% per year, although in 2017 Russia had a negative population growth rate of -0,08%. 3]
- The money boom triggered by the Baby Boom is about to run its course in the United States, as the Boomers make less, spend less and retire, drawing on the taxed earnings of a shrinking population of economic producers.
[During the Obama years, the U.S. federal debt, not including unfunded liabilities, increased by $8.43 trillion, from $11.55 trillion in Q2 2009 to $19.98 trillion in Q2 2016. 4]
- In Germany, in 2006, in one province alone, 220 schools were padlocked for lack of pupils.
[Germany: Thousands of schools have been closed during the last ten years :: The number of students in Germany is falling steadily, today there are 6100 fewer schools than ten years ago. The biggest loser is the secondary school. — Spiegel Online, 2014 04 24 5]
- Japan’s population reduction is so severe that the country is virtually shutting itself down, with labor shortages and plants closing.
[“…compared to other countries Japan’s case is extreme, particularly as it pertains to ageing. Adult diapers have outsold baby diapers in Japan for the last six years, and many jails are turning into de facto nursing homes, as Japanese elders account for 20% of all crime in the country. With no one else to care for them, many reoffend just to come back. Stealing a sandwich can mean two years of jail time, but it also means two years of free housing and meals.” —»’This is death to the family‘: Japan’s fertility crisis is creating economic and social woes never seen before« Chris Weller, May 22, 2017, 1:00 AM; Business Insider, Australia :: see also the concluding comment.]
Data sources for the added remarks in the preceding list:
- Countries with TFRs below replacement level of 2.1 (CIA World Factbook, 2017 est.)
- Countries with shrinking populations (CIA World Factbook, 2017 est.)
- 2017 population figures for Russia (CIA World Factbook, 2017 est.)
- The increase of the U.S. federal debt during the Obama years (Wolfram Alpha)
- Trend of school closures in Germany 2004 to 2014 (Spiegel Online, 2014 04 24; the article is in German, but right-click on its text and select “Translate to English”)
‘This is death to the family’ is confusing cause and effect. Largely, Japan’s fertility crises caused the death of the family and triggered the calamity that hurts Japan’s elderly (the problem is now just in its infancy, it will become much worse).
It is not correct to state that Japan’s case is extreme. In countries that have no well-developed, taxpayer-funded social safety nets, the neglect of the elderly is worse.
In such countries, in many by law, the children in families are the only social safety net that parents and grandparents can rely on for their survival when elderly are no longer productive as well as unable to care for themselves.
Without sufficient numbers of children, the elderly will die in large numbers in such countries and eventually as well in countries that are running out of tax revenues for supporting the ever increasing demands placed on government-run social safety nets. Without sufficient children who become productive and generate tax revenues – even in developed nations – the elderly will have no choice but to die in squalor and poverty. This article, “Many elderly – too few children to care for them,” describes the context and circumstances of that unavoidable issue.
“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” —Margaret Thatcher
Too bad. Money is not the only thing socialism runs out of. Who would have thought that an even more serious problem is to run out of other people’s children? The people who never had the benefit of living in nations with taxpayer-funded social safety nets knew that all along.