Home » World

European Population Decline

2 July 2008 Comments Written by: Alicia O.

As you may know, not all countries are facing overpopulation. A NY Times article from yesterday discusses the European population decline crisis. It begins by talking about Italy. While in the sixties most families were having at least two children (which means steady population) many families today are having only one child, or none. T. Due to the high cost of living in many cities, such as Milan, adults are forced with the decision to stay in that city and remain childless or try to move. When I was in Arezzo, Italy this past fall, I hardly ever saw a pregnant woman–there were many children and teenagers due to the fact that this is a small, wealthy (for the most part) city. Here is an excerpt.

To the uninitiated, “lowest low” seems a strange thing to worry about. A few decades ago we were getting “the population explosion” drilled into us. The invader species homo sapiens, we learned, was eating through the planet’s resources and irretrievably fouling and wrecking its fragile systems. Has the situation changed for the better since Paul Ehrlich set off the alarm in 1968 with his best seller “The Population Bomb”? Do current headlines — global food shortages, climate change — not indicate continuing signs of calamity?

Here I talk about the causes and effects of the population decline according to the NY Times article. Some of these are just hypotheses that the writer discusses which come from various sources (religious, sociological…etc).

Causes

  • -high cost of living
  • -infertility?
  • -birth control (Pope Benedict calls it a “lack of concern for the future”)
  • Changes in Women’s attitudes
  • In Italy, children stay at home longer, get married later, get later start on having a family and tend to have less kids.
  • lack of focus on gender equality (especially in the workplace) leads women to not want to have kids.

Effects

  • -Economic effects–many people will be forced to work beyond retirement years
  • -Immigrants may replace Europeans
  • -importance of Western values and influence diminishes as young people from non-western countries will grow up and dominate the world scene
  • history/cultures of specific European groups as well as ruins, art, not preserved because non-European groups populate? (more of a fear, according to the author)

What is troubling..

There seems to be a discussion happening about what the best course of action is for dealing with population decline.

Some are happy and want to encourage further population decline (eugenicists). They say it’s about time countries started thinking about their populations critically to keep them steady or declining. Afterall, there aren’t enough resources in the world to keep us all alive and eating 5 meals a day with 24 hr a day access to McDonald’s.

Some want to encourage women to have babies, like the mayor of Laviano, Italy. He is offering Euros to women who have children. Currently, the state is also offering a 1000 euro bonus, I believe. Sound familiar? Yep, Hitler was totally into Natalism…but then again, he also didn’t want people with unfavorable characteristics to have offspring…will it come to this?

Some say, rather than offering overt incentives, cultural attitudes need to change–a society’s attitude toward traditional gender roles affects whether women choose to have children. The economic climate must change as well. If the cost of living is high, companies must offer a decent maternity leave (heck, they could offer paternity leave, too).

Map of Europe

Some say do not try to do either of the above, rather prepare towns and cities for population decline. Instead of trying to immediately make people have kids, urban planners must rethink the future. For example, people may need to work longer and the economy will shift toward services rather than products. This could be bad…

Though I feel closest to the last strategy of a “hands-off” government, I also acknowledge, as Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau has said, “You can’t keep going with a completely upside-down age distribution, with the pyramid standing on its point. You can’t have a country where everybody lives in a nursing home.”

What do we do?

Knowing the the elites of the world want 80% of the population gone…what is your suggestion?

Andrew, maybe you could post something from Alex Jones on this…connect the dots a little?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Vote This Post DownVote This Post Up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    What do we do?

    Well, leaders in Italy should avoid "baby bonus" incentives as it is very unlikely these incentives actually promote the making of babies. I can't imagine any couple seriously considering economic incentive while making the decision to have a child. And if they would, I fear that the child wouldn't have the most spectacular of upbringings.

    I'm having a hard time viewing a "lowest-low" fertility rate in the grand scheme of things as a bad thing. The human population is still "exploding" and will curb off anywhere between 9 and 12 billion people. Even with a little over 6 billion we have ecological crises that have undoubtedly effected both society, and if left unmitigated, will prove to be the largest single threat to the well being of societies throughout the world. Global warming, loss of biodiversity and pollution are all examples of these ecological crises. The human population needs to be curbed as quickly as possible and we need to change the kind of affluence (the energy, resource intensive type) that we've become accustomed to in order to avoid (quite literally) global disaster.

    That being said, I view this low population growth as positive in that aspect. However, there has to be a point at which this population decline is truly detrimental to the economy of Italy. I think what Italians need is solid information about the predicted and current effects of this decline. After all, the only way this problem (if it indeed is, or becomes, a problem) will be fixed is through a cultural shift in attitudes.

    I don't understand the elite of the world wanting 80 percent of the population gone?... can you elaborate
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for thinking about the article! I was hoping more people would comment...

    Anyway, about "needing to curb human population:" How do we do that? How do you stop people from having kids? Do you see the problem with government sponsored initiatives that fiddle with fertility? Usually initiatives that try to cut fertility are ones such as Planned Parenthood, which tries to stop (usually) low-income individuals from having too many kids...

    There's really a lot to think about here. While humans are causing irreversible damage to this planet and we face food crises, it is difficult to suggest that we intentionally focus and having less children being born--something about it seems creepy to me. Also, if there are a lack of resources left on the planet, how is it that we Americans have 24 hr a day access to places like McDonalds, Wegmans, etc which are perpetually full of food and other resources (in the case of wegman's)--this while millions of people live on a dollar a day or less.

    About the elite comment: That was kind of a comment directed toward Andrew to post some links to information about evidence that depopulation is an ultimate goal of some organizations...look here for starters. It's a favorite site of Andrew's.
    http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2007/1...
    • ^
    • v
    The curbing of the human population needs to be intentional. But the choice isn't, "Do I have a child... yes or no." Planned parenthood is part of the solution, families (women in particular) need options, especially in developing countries. However, empowering women, promoting education, providing condoms, combating malaria and HIV all promote all stunt rapid growth and bring them down to more sustaining levels. These initiatives serve "win-win" situations improving health, sanity and at times even promoting democracy while lessening the environmental impact of an exploding population.
    • ^
    • v
    Planned Parenthood is a eugenics op with admitted goals of reducing minority populations. Just look at their locations in the inner city. Please Google: "planned parenthood eugenics" to get an idea of this institution's long history and connections to Nazism (and the eugenics operations in America that Hitler got his ideas from). It might shock you!
    • ^
    • v
    The version of "planned parenthood" is subjective. In lesser developed countries with little access to medicines or health care, planned parenthood means options. Instead of having anywhere from one to nine children, a women and her partner have options: condoms, possibly birth control, abortions. Planned Parenthood outposts in these countries sometimes also offer a hygienic and professional environment in which to have children. It's hard to find a negative slant for these particular Planned Parenthood stations in lesser developed countries. There is a bigger picture.

    Planned parenthood in more developed countries serves the same purpose. People in need of options, who may not have the income to have options by default. I'm willing to bet that promoting responsible parenting is at the heart of planned parenthood, not the thinning of the minority population at the hand of... well, I guess I'll let you finish that sentence? Who would want to thin the population of minorities and cover it up with planned parenthood Andrew?
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus