Anybody who understands... well, anything... knows that the world is not overpopulated nor will it ever be. The idea of overpopulation was born in the 1970s when chicken-little leftists noticed that it took a lot less time for the world population to go from one billion to two, and less to get to three, and less to get to four, and less to get to five. Here’s a handy chart of DOOOOOM:
123 years.... 2 to 3 billionAt this rate, we’ll be at 100 billion in minutes, right? Well, hardly. If you have even the slightest grasp on demographics or anything else in nature, like how diseases spread, you know that these things peak and then collapse. So it’s inevitable that this will actually stop and reverse itself. But don’t tell that to liberals because they LOVE straight-line projections... one... two... infinity!
33 years...... 3 to 4 billion
14 years...... 4 to 5 billion
12 years...... 5 to 6 billion
Anyway, the academic world has now caught on to the problem. It turns out that it took 13 years to get to 7 billion, i.e. longer than it took to get to 6 billion. This shocked people because it wasn’t supposed to happen, so they began looking for an explanation and, lo and behold, they discovered that birthrates are falling everywhere. They are falling so much that Western Europe is expected to fall from its estimated peak of 460 million to around 350 million by the year 2100. China’s population will fall by half in that time, as will Russia’s. Mexico’s birthrate has crashed from 7.3 births per woman in 1960 to 2.5 today and is still falling. India’s fell from 6 to 2.5. Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. And so on.
What happened is this. Birth rates soared when mankind learned to stop the diseases that were killing most of people when they were young. Then capitalism reached every corner of the world and birth rates started to collapse because prosperous people have fewer kids. This trend isn’t stopping either: it’s consistent across countries and cultures. And the people studying this now believe that most of us will still be alive to hear the news that the world population has actually begun shrinking.
Sadly for the left, the premise of so many of their beliefs is this idea that the population will continue to rise forever. That won’t happen now and you can already see them decoupling their ideology from this rotten apple. Indeed, the article mentioning this tried to pretend that the whole population bomb was just one of those US things and not leftist dogma. It actually said,
“This is a counter-intuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future.”Yeah, right. Actually, none of us believed it except dogmatic enviro-leftists.
Anyway, not all liberals are onboard with the newthink yet. The Los Angeles Times is running a seven part series on the horrors of there being seven billion of us and how this trend of growth without end will lead to “bleak living conditions.” Oh well, give them time. Soon all of liberaldom will be safely within the groupthink and they will be preaching the dangers of the population shortage. No doubt they’ll recommend forced breeding, which sounds like a perfect solution for liberals: it’s simple, it’s oppressive, and it’s guaranteed not to work. Ah, liberals.
57 comments:
And ironically, the recent stall in population growth may end up being more problematic than continued growth, as the countries going through these demographic shifts almost always wind up with a top-heavy age distribution. Then comes an overload of seniors for society to support, then too few young workers to support them, and--well, go look at Europe.
Not that one outcome is necessarily preferable to the other; just keep in mind the Left will find some way to make a "crisis" out of this as soon as it becomes clear the overpopulation thing isn't working out.
T-Rav, That will actually be the bigger problem because society has based their retirement systems on the Ponzi Scheme model, so it requires more and more people.
China in particular is in for SERIOUS problems in this regard in a couple decades because they are amazingly top heavy -- much more so than Europe.
And I don't for the life of me doubt that once leftists figure this out, they'll swing back into "we need to make people breed mode". The Euros are already trying that to a degree.
All I have to sday is this....
Soylent Green is People! Soylent Green is People! Soylent Green is People!
Indi, Sadly, no. That only works if we have too many people. So short the Soylent stock. :(
Nah, I don't think Leftist will recommend forced breeding at all. It's bad for the environment, remember? They'll call for a huge number of seniors to "sleep permanently", instead. *Evil Laugh*
Yeah, it's nice to see people finally waking up on this whole "over population" myth. If we took all of the people in the world and put them together, it'll only fill up the great state of Texas (Yeah, I'm kissing up to our fellow Texans here! Howdy, y'all! lol).
Snape: Using the model that what really floats a leftist's cork is power over people - for the common good, of course - then I expect reduced population will result in a call for vastly increased areas of parks and nature preserves. Primarily because it's tough to control a dispersed population and secondarily leftism thrives in high population densities.
An interesting point here is that Paul Erlich of "The Population Bomb" fame now claims that it was his wildly inaccurate and controversial predictions that led to the reduction of population. IOWs,he meant to do that. Which is another reason not to believe his proteges, the global warming hysterics.
Andrew.....I have always thought that it wasn't necessarily over-population that got the left in hysterics, but the fact that the wrong people were increasing and we were finding ways to actually reduce their suffering through science and capitalism. Horror of horrors, we can increase crop yields and sell food to "poor" countries! Then they won't die off as they should as good little subjects.
I think if there were more little baby leftists being born in the major Western capitals Erlich and his Malthusians would be all in favor. Where are the "increased" birth rates coming from? From people that can eat a healthy diet and respect life. Can't have that. Bad form brown people, bad form.
Ah liberals, indeed. What would we do without them? I can think of many things.
>>forced breeding>>
Which of course runs antithetical to the left's seeming love-affair with abortion, so look for them to actually get on board with it.
A little more than two years ago, Ted Turner was calling for a global one-child policy. I remember because I had a few things to say at the time.
tryanmax, there's also the unpleasant fact that many developing countries would respond by aborting large numbers of female babies, much as China has done under its own one-child policy. I'm sure the feminists will be on board with that, right?
[I]t’s simple, it’s oppressive, and it’s guaranteed not to work.
The perfect observation as to all legislation cooked up by liberals.
Snape, I think they will eventually decide we need to encourage breeding because Europe is already doing that. Leftists see people as economic inputs and when they realize that their economic dreams are falling apart and governments are going broke because their economies are shrinking, they will start trying to find ways to push people to have more kids.
Trust me, leftists move from priority to priority and once this idea catches on with them, "the environment" will "require" more people.
K, That's typical of idiots and leftists -- taking credit for something they in no way caused by claiming they "raised awareness." "I raised awareness of beating Hitler and he lost... I did that."
You are right that leftism tends to work best in high density areas, but don't discount that it works well in a lot of rural areas as well. Rural folks can't pay for things like roads and no private company will build roads to them, so they tend to favor big government to makes sure they get services.
The truth is that prosperity and medicine are the cause of this. As people get richer and as the odds of their children surviving to adulthood grow, they have fewer kids. Simple.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the left. They will need to decouple most of their environmental theories from the "too many people" train. And I am serious that they will soon decide there just aren't enough people and we should all start breeding.
Patriot, The left is BIG on the idea of "the wrong people" -- they love eugenics. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. As I've pointed out a couple times, this ruins their dream that Mexicans will swamp the US. It also dramatically reduces the likelihood of anyone else doing it either. At the same time, lots of these people overseas are now standing up to the left and accusing it of "cultural imperialism." China and India are making most of the world's population capitalist.
Now all those foreigners are wiping out the Trojan Horse upon which they've based their environmental theories.
It's an ugly time for the left. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
Eric, I think the left would have no problem at all being pro-abortion and pro-forced breeding. That kind of disconnect has become easy for them.
But more likely, once they realize the planet needs more children, they'll outlaw abortion and instead open government-run birtheries where you can deposit unwanted children and have them raised by the state. Hitler did it. Stalin did it.
tryanmax, Are you looking for consistency or logic in liberals? Puuulease. Turner will flip his opinion the moment the group switches over and he, like the rest, will be quite sure he's ALWAYS believed whatever it is he believes now. Liberalism is not shackled to the past... even if the past was only 20 minutes ago.
T-Rav, Ultimately, that will be the issue that I think they may use to ban abortion when they make the switch -- "we must ban abortion because we can't trust people because evil men are forcing women to abort baby girls."
Libertarian Advocate, Yep. That's the liberal legislative mindset in a nutshell.
Andrew:Rural folks can't pay for things like roads and no private company will build roads to them, so they tend to favor big government to makes sure they get services..
Sure, but once the government pays for that - a relatively small amount for a short time - they want the government to go away. Take a look at the electoral maps by county. If LA and SF split off into "Taxafornia", California would be a red state.
Now that I think about it I agree about leftists pushing for more population. Ponzi schemes are also good for political corruption and vote buying. Both parties love them for that reason. In addition, religious families then to out breed the left, so more immigrants - legal or illegal - will have to be let in to compensate.
If we wish to experience the advantages of lower population growth, then quite a few policies will have to be rethought or we'll end up with the status quo and stagnation.
K, That's true, but it's true of city dwellers too. They want their benefits and then they want to be left alone. That's the thing about leftists, they want the government to given them things and to control everybody else... but not them.
I think the left will come around very quickly to the need to having more people once they realize the consequences. Fewer people means less power. It means a greater ability to be independent because it will cause wages to rise -- that means the need for government decreases. It means the end to the whole Ponzi scheme of government, which means the government must learn to live with less.
Give it time. It won't happen overnight, but don't be surprised if within 20-30 years, you see the left switch sides and become obsessed with adding people.
Andrew, I wouldn't look for that to happen any time soon because the Left is so wedded to "abortion rights," but I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility. What would really interest me along those lines is if liberals start taking up the cause of some ultranationalists and propose polygamy as a means of producing more children. That might actually happen first.
Andrew and Patriot, as far as the "wrong people" go, Michael Crichton's State of Fear has a great take on that. Apart from the global-warming stuff, there's a subplot concerning a Hollywood actor who talks all about equality and "saving the planet," but by the end he shows himself to be deeply racist; he thinks he's more intelligent than Third World people, and therefore needs to tell them how to live their lives. It's very perceptive.
T-Rav, Trust me young one, the left will turn on a dime. I've seen it over and over in my life.
They left favors abortion right now because (1) feminists see it as an economic device and (2) environmentalists say population control is necessary. Crashing birthrates will wipe out the second plank. I'm not sure if the first will be enough to sustain it, especially when blacks and Hispanics realize that they are the ones being aborted.
And don't forget, when the left jumps on board some idea, they go all in. So if they decide that the population slump must be stopped, they will throw everything out there including banning abortion.
Give it time. I think it's likely.
T-Rav, The left is deeply racist. They pretend they aren't, but all of their theories tell me they are. They see minorities as children who need to be guided by superior liberal whites.
And the Third World is actually turning against them. First, they've started accusing leftists (feminists and environmentalists in particular) of "cultural imperialism." Secondly, they've started to reject the liberal agenda on most issues, which has incensed liberals.
T-Rav, Don't you understand that imagined income dispairity, access to free contraception, and how upsetting Todd Akin is are far bigger problems for women than gender-targeted abortion, punitive rape, acid mutilations, and female "circumcision"? C'mon!
But seriously, Andrew is right, all that will change when liberals decide it is better to force women to have babies than it is to force women to abort them. Either way, it's men in government forcing women to do something. And there was evening, and there was morning.
Andrew, I agree the left is deeply racist in its paternalistic attitude toward other cultures. I'd say that's what causes them to regard as racist anything which treats different races as true equals. It's like parents who tell the older child to bend the rules for his younger sibling, except that both children are grown and in their mid-30s.
RE: Eugenics -- Brown is the new Aryan, so I would expect the next turn of eugenics to be toward interacial mixing. There will probably even be studies asserting that racially mixed people are healthier and live longer, etc. etc. And, of course, this will be bolstered by a standard of beauty focused on olive-toned skin. If I had the scratch, I'd buy stock in dating sites that specialize in interracial matching.
I've come across several stories lately suggestive of the notion that the BMI tables that everyone obsesses over should be tweaked upward. This coincides with a rising appreciation in the media for rounder builds on women of color. White girls are still expected to be skinny. I would not be surprised to encounter assertions soon that the BMI is somehow racist--at which point the right will suddenly start defending BMI.
RE: Ted Turner -- you're probably right. He was probably just "raising awareness," too.
yes-- linear thinking and an apparent total lack of understanding both the law of unintended consequence, as well as the interrelationship between almost everything.
tryanmax and T-Rav, The left is not bound by their rhetoric. They believe in doing what they think is needed at the moment without regard to doing what is right. Abortion isn't a matter of principle with them because they don't have principles, so it will be nothing to justify a total switch when the time comes. It won't come for some time I don't think, but it will come. That's how the left works, they discover some new objective and they charge toward it full speed.
Jed, Yep. The linear thinking thing is the real problem for the left. They are always willing to take a two data points and extrapolate them to infinity. It's bizarre. I think it's because their thinking is all short term and static.
tryanmax, I have no idea where the left is headed next, but I'm not sure I believe they will go for mixed races. That was the big thing on the left in the 1990s when Time put out articles telling us the entire human race would one day look like Mexico or Southern Italy. But I think that ship has sailed. Identity politics requires the races to remain separate so that you have a clear identity. Encouraging mixing would upend all of modern liberal thinking.
And to support that, look at the sudden surge in anger at interracial marriage among blacks. It's becoming a hot topic.
I think that if the leftists determine that we "need" population-balancing, it will, as mentioned above, go for reducing the heavy end of the curve rather than forcefully increasing the other end. Easier, more resource-efficient, and they get to keep that tenet of their faith, "reproductive freedom"
Mr. Snape - good job!
tryanmax, you're right. How silly of me. Up is down, black is white, etc etc.
Of course the left will go for mixed races. They will have to because that is where things are headed, and they always jump ahead of the parade once they're sure where it's going. People are amazingly inventive when it comes to prejudice and bigotry. We'll find something.
rlaWTX, We'll see, but honestly, I think conservatives need to understand that just because abortion is a matter of principle to some of them, it's not with the left. With the left, it's just a policy. Reproductive freedom is just rhetoric that fits their current policies... it's not anything they really care about.
T-Rav, Up was never up, it was always down. Why are you dwelling on the past?
tryanmax, We'll see. Mixing races throw a real wrench into the whole balancing act the left has created. Not only does it break down the idea that everyone belongs to a particular race, but it suggests that the races should not be at war with each other. I think this is a bridge too far for the left any time soon.
Andrew said:
Actually, none of us believed it except dogmatic enviro-leftists.
-----
I agree with the thrust of your article, but its worth keeping in mind that environmental doomsayers have been less important in the past couple decades than the empowerment of women (give women more options, fewer have kids because some will opt for careers) and the negative linkage between kids and prosperity in post-agrarian societies (when a kid was going to work the farm, kids were fine and good, now kids are going to go off to college, which ain't cheap).
Anthony, I agree with that. Actually, I think environmental doomsayers have been irrelevant to the issue of population control. They talk... governments pass laws... people ignore them and do what they were going to do anyway.
I think the reason demographics change are this is simply how everything in nature works -- there are no straight lines. And in this case, the population is responding to growing affluence, improved medical care, and women finding opportunities besides child bearing.
By the way, don't forget it's Questionable Tuesday at the film site.
AndrewPrice said...
tryanmax, We'll see. Mixing races throw a real wrench into the whole balancing act the left has created. Not only does it break down the idea that everyone belongs to a particular race, but it suggests that the races should not be at war with each other. I think this is a bridge too far for the left any time soon.
----------
Its pretty common already.
-------
According to the Pew report, more than 25 percent of Hispanics and Asians who married in 2010 had a spouse of a different race. That's compared to 17.1 percent of blacks and 9.4 percent of whites. Of the 275,500 new interracial marriages in 2010, 43 percent were white-Hispanic couples, 14.4 percent were white-Asian, 11.9 percent were white-black, and the remainder were other combinations.
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/16/interracial-marriage-hits-record-high-driven-by-latino-population-growth/#ixzz2I4iPLmji
--------
I don't think racial mixing is something anyone can turn to for politcial advantage. Its a common bipartisan phenomena. There are too many mixed relationships and too many people who are the products of mixed relationships out there for an attack to do anything but backfire.
Anthony, I know the numbers are going up, but I hadn't seen the 17% number. Interesting. The last I heard it was around 6%.
In any event, I think you are right that this is inevitable and that standing in the way politically would be a mistake that would backfire on whoever tried it. BUT that doesn't mean it's not being tried. There is a lot of buzz in black intellectual circles about mixed race relationship. There was even a scandal a couple years ago with Obama inviting several people to the White House who were strongly opposed to mixed race relationships.
I think race mixing really does represent a danger to the idea of identity politics. It breaks down the barriers set up for political reasons.
Maybe I said the opposite of what I meant. I don't think liberals (who tend to be the ones who operate in this fashion) will attempt to stand against racial mixing. I think they will try to claim the mixed-race demographic as their own. Right now the left sees the multi-racial future as their key to political panacea. Yes, they rely heavily on identity politics, but as we've already noted, they call everyone else racist while they behave in a racist fashion. In other words, they don't see their dependence on race in identity politics.
That doesn't mean that I think identity politics will die. People are too adept at finding differences amongst themselves. As Americans, we don't see it as much b/c we are possibly the least savvy people on the planet in terms of identifying subtle differences. We can barely tell Irish from Italian in this country anymore. But that doesn't stop the Europeans in Europe from spotting all manner of ethnic identifiers among their own countrymen, without crossing national boundaries. It's the same thing all over the world. I can't tell and Arab from a Persian, but they seem to have no problem. The Han Chinese find it simple to spot anyone who isn't Han.
I can't predict what lines will be drawn in a more racially blended America, but rest assured, they will be drawn. Perhaps people will become more attuned to the makeup of the various human cocktails and the degrees of multi-racial-ness each individual possesses. And even if everybody had the precise same genetic makeup, same eye color, hair, and skin tone, there would still be matters of gender, religion, sexual orientation, income, education, height, weight, taste in entertainment, etc. etc. etc.
tryanmax, That's probably true. I get the feeling the left has adopted the old racist Southern "one drop" rule, i.e. the idea that if you have even one drop of black blood in you, then you are black. And if you have that drop, then you are supposed to consider yourself an oppressed minority.
But I don't know if that works though. I know lots of mixed race people (and several mixed race couples) and none of them really identify with identity politics. They seem pretty non-racial to me, actually.
You're right about the rest of the world, by the way. I'm amazed every time I've been overseas how racist and xenophobic the rest of the world is -- even as they accuse of us of racism. If you want to see real racism, go to Asia.
"If you want to see real racism, go to Asia."
I would, but that would require going to Asia. :-/
I know Europe is pretty bad, though. The common attitude in many countries is to have formal tolerance of all creeds and colors, but in practice relegate minorities to one corner of society. They associate with theirs, everyone else associates with their own, etc. And some nations are worse than others in that regard. I've heard Sweden referred to as a "reverse zoo": you visit, and all the natives are staring at you.
I have German relatives and I can tell you that they are deeply racist. The ironic thing is that they claim they aren't. They accuse us of racism and then they hate anyone who isn't ethnic German. In my experience, Germans openly talk about other races and ethnicities as being inferior, they buy only German goods, deal only with German companies, and view their minorities with anger and suspicion.
TJ, I'm sorry, I didn't see your comment or I would have gotten it from the spam filter earlier.
I'll tell you, a world without liberals would be an interesting place. Financial sanity... less crime... less anger... less stupidity. Hmm.
AndrewPrice said...
tryanmax, That's probably true. I get the feeling the left has adopted the old racist Southern "one drop" rule, i.e. the idea that if you have even one drop of black blood in you, then you are black. And if you have that drop, then you are supposed to consider yourself an oppressed minority.
But I don't know if that works though. I know lots of mixed race people (and several mixed race couples) and none of them really identify with identity politics. They seem pretty non-racial to me, actually.
-----------
I don't know about the oppressed minority thing, but generally speaking in the black community you're either considered a member or you aren't and purity of bloodline has nothing to do with it. That's held true since the days of slavery though, so its not a new development.
I'm certain that purity of blood isn't a big concern among Hispanics either. Being Hispanic merely means one hails from a certain region and says nothing about one's physical appearance.
I think some of the people born of interracial relationships will stick to the established categories (identifying with group X over group Y as many have done throughout American history) while others will carve a new path.
I think the whole thing is fascinating, but not really relevant to politics. The dividing line in modern politics is idealogical, not racial.
Anthony, you're absolutely right that politics is ultimately ideological, but most people can't separate their identity from their ideology. All identity politics does is to further the conflation through circular reasoning--which people are remarkably prone to falling for.
It starts with a stereotype that Group X is assumed to have a particular positive trait, let's say they're more punctual. But at some point, someone casts light on the stereotype as what it is. So Group X has a problem: they like being thought of as punctual and don't appreciate the insinuation that they might be just as tardy as other groups. Now comes a political party with a ready solution. They say, we know Xers are punctual, because our party is all about punctuality. And what's more, we reject the negative stereotype that you are all picky-eaters. Now, you don't have to prove you're punctual to anyone, but if you joined the punctual people over here, no one would question it. And so the political party becomes proof of what is already "known."
And so it will be with mixed-race people. The only reason the mixed-race demo now gains attention is b/c something near 3% of people identified as such in the last census. There is already a mixed-race stereotype forming--that they are more culturally savvy, better adjusted, more attractive, and healthier. Who wouldn't want to be any of those things? And, of course, there is already literature starting to publish to both support and refute several of those assertions. I expect the Democrat party to woo the mixed-race demo as described above and for the Republican party to be caught flat-footed once again.
I cannot remember the name of it, but there is a new book out that explores the population implosion, especially in the middle east. Apparantly, the birth rate there has completely crashed. Although this would generally be good for us, his concern is it may make the people in those countries feel like they have nothing to lose but to lash out at others.
I have also read that the US stands better than any other nation in this regard with current birth rate and immigration. This is how the right may be able to adopt the immigration issue. Immigration is good as it keeps our work force young and vital. We should work to immediately make as many as those immigrants "Americans". Stop allowing the leftists from using the racist wedge.
If it wasn't for a few left leaning people, we might be stuck with Santorum governing us. :(
BMI is a tool. It is not perfect but very easy to derive from large populations. There has always been a lot of debate regarding the BMI 25-30 as their health doesn't seem much worse than 20-25. But it is clear the >30 (obese) and >40 (morbidly obese) do have a much higher rates of medical problems.
NPR did a piece a bit ago about the aging population in Japan. I always pay close attention to the inflection and other non-verbals when I listen to NPR. They sounded very surprised to me.
Anthony, I don't mean the 1 drop rule as minorities demanding purity, I meant it the other way around actually -- if you have 1 drop, then you can be an oppressed minority.
tryanmax, I'm telling you, liberals are waking up this idea that the world needs more people. They are starting to see the threat to liberalism, which relies on ever-more people adding to the economic pie.
Koshcat, BMI was a step in the right direction for me because the height-weight charts they used to use were ridiculous. My ideal weight with zero fat on my body (something I will never achieve) was 50 pounds too heavy under those charts.
As for the implosion, it's happening everywhere around the world and in some places is extreme. The US has fared best of everyone because we do have high immigration, but that's going to start slowing as the number of immigrants around the world falls.
President Santorum? Blech.
AndrewPrice said...
Anthony, I don't mean the 1 drop rule as minorities demanding purity, I meant it the other way around actually -- if you have 1 drop, then you can be an oppressed minority.
-------
Perhaps, but I think such claims are more likely to get people in trouble. Elizabeth Warren's race had a lot more drama than it otherwise would have due to her claiming to be Native American.
Also, convincing someone of one's ethnic heritage is less important than convincing them that you are on the same page (trust me, any honest black Republican can tell you there is a lot of space inbetween points A and B) so I think citing possibly imaginary drops as evidence of affinity is a high risk gambit with very little reward even if it succeeds.
Anthony, Could be. All I can speak from is my perspective and what I've seen is as us versus them mentality with people pulled into the "us" if they have the slightest minority ancestry.
BUT you are right that being on the wrong side politically can also get you tossed out.
Post a Comment