April 15, 2023 - 8:00am
This week saw the unsurprising news that Japan’s population has fallen again. A sombre Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno told the nation that there are now 556,000 fewer people in the country, a twelfth consecutive decline, and a record fall offset only by an influx of 175,000 immigrants in 2022.
For the world’s third largest economy, the declining population is now being treated as a national emergency. Japan is now “on the brink of not being able to maintain social functions,” Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told his countrymen earlier this year. The leader of the conservative Liberal Democratic party now regards “child rearing” as one of the country’s most important economic policies.
Japan’s experience may well be a warning to the rest of the world. Since the pandemic, falling birthrates alongside ageing populations have been the top line in global development. Last year, the UN reported the lowest population growth since 1950. Europe, North America and China are now all facing a future of declining and ageing populations. By 2030, one billion of the world’s population will be aged over 65. There are even signs that population growth may be slowing in Africa.
Perhaps the most surprising voice to join the depopulation doomsters is the Club of Rome. Its infamous 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, cheerily argued that “the basic behaviour mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital, followed by collapse.” Now, the think tank appears to have had a change of heart.
In its latest report in partnership with Earth4All, the neo-Malthusian organisation is now predicting that the global population growth will plateau around 2050 with a decline in total numbers of up to 2 billion by the end of the century.
The report still stresses the problems of resource scarcity, global warming and social tension; however, in both of its scenarios, it predicts that population growth will largely fall across all continents between 2040-2060. The report even confesses that on “existing policies”, limiting the planet to nine billion by 2046 will “not result in an overt ecological or total climate collapse”.
Half a century on from the apocalyptic 1972 report, it’s now clear the alarmism about overpopulation was wrong. Despite this, its legacy persists. David Attenborough has toyed with the idea of overpopulation and saving the planet in his films. There is also evidence that younger generations associate not having children with a similar endeavour. Even Greenpeace has issued an edict on the subject, warning its members not to dabble with the overpopulation argument, and describing Paul Ehrlich’s influential 1968 book The Population Bomb as a “racist narrative”.
It now seems this bomb isn’t quite going to go off as predicted. But, as seen in Japan, this brings an entirely new host of problems. Conservative demographers such as Paul Morland and Philip Longman have argued for the economic and social catastrophes of declining birth rates combined with an ageing population, a debate that is yet to really penetrate the mainstream.
In an ever-widening field of apocalyptic worries, from climate change to the threat of AI, the problem of global depopulation is starting to sneak up. Soon, the eyes of the world may well be on Tokyo’s push for more babies.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf we discount migrants, Japan acrually has a higher birth rate than the vast majority of western countries. For cultural reasons Japan will not import a million foreigners a year as we have been doing. We are not exactly better off for it. Higher GDP, but a low trust, high crime society where nobody can buy a house or get married.
I have every confidence that the Japanese will find the correct solution.
After all they managed to transform themselves from a Medieval ‘head chopping’ society to a major industrial power in fairly short order in the late 19 century.
This was no mean feat, whilst contemporary China and the rest of Asia stagnated.
I have had the privilege of visiting Japan several times and still keep in contact with people there. They can’t understand why we are pressing the Self Destruct Button in our country. They read about us and see only that we are trying to destroy ourselves. Almost every government decision seems to be with the aim of ruining our own existence.
For me, they have not only grown up into modern life but they realise how important that achievement has been. It is as if we in the UK have led the world for so long that we must be disgusted with ourselves for doing so.
Yes, quite astonishing really, a sort of ‘death wish’!
Paradoxically it was GB that Japan took as its role model for industrialisation etc. We even had the famous Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty of 1904.
Then sadly it all turned to dust, post 1922.
Yes, but still doesn’t explain the wish to do the same in another way. A culture will also due out if there is no one left to perpetuate it.
Yes, quite astonishing really, a sort of ‘death wish’!
Paradoxically it was GB that Japan took as its role model for industrialisation etc. We even had the famous Anglo-Japanese Naval Treaty of 1904.
Then sadly it all turned to dust, post 1922.
Yes, but still doesn’t explain the wish to do the same in another way. A culture will also due out if there is no one left to perpetuate it.
Completely agree. Not to mention transforming again from an expansionist militarist power to a pacifist economic juggernaut after WWII. If there’s one civilization that seems to handle social transitions well, it’s the Japanese. I can’t think of any better civilization to blaze a path for the rest of us to follow. To a large extent, Japan is an outlier among world nations over the past two decades. They have remained committed to low immigration and social cohesion even at significant economic cost. They have among the world’s lowest crime rates and most stable governments while nevertheless remaining one of the most innovative countries in terms of technology and science. They stand as a refutation of the notion that ‘diversity’ is a driver of innovation and creativity. Other civilizations with low crime and social harmony (like the Scandinavian nations) share many of these traits.
Perhaps a monoculture has it’s benefits after all.
Tô put it mildly!
That is ray-cist. Apologize.
Tô put it mildly!
That is ray-cist. Apologize.
Perhaps a monoculture has it’s benefits after all.
Commodore Perry had something to do with that transition. Sans the black ships of America, it’s Japan might well be like North Korea today.
At what cost did this transformation occur though? They’ve got millions of youngsters who don’t leave the house; sky-high suicide rates; scores of highly-educated women who reject marriage altogether; the highest proportion of 30-year-olds who’ve never experienced physical intimacy of anywhere in the developed world.
Europe is not faring well but neither is Japan.
I thought you were describing the West there until the “physical intimacy” part.
I thought you were describing the West there until the “physical intimacy” part.
I have had the privilege of visiting Japan several times and still keep in contact with people there. They can’t understand why we are pressing the Self Destruct Button in our country. They read about us and see only that we are trying to destroy ourselves. Almost every government decision seems to be with the aim of ruining our own existence.
For me, they have not only grown up into modern life but they realise how important that achievement has been. It is as if we in the UK have led the world for so long that we must be disgusted with ourselves for doing so.
Completely agree. Not to mention transforming again from an expansionist militarist power to a pacifist economic juggernaut after WWII. If there’s one civilization that seems to handle social transitions well, it’s the Japanese. I can’t think of any better civilization to blaze a path for the rest of us to follow. To a large extent, Japan is an outlier among world nations over the past two decades. They have remained committed to low immigration and social cohesion even at significant economic cost. They have among the world’s lowest crime rates and most stable governments while nevertheless remaining one of the most innovative countries in terms of technology and science. They stand as a refutation of the notion that ‘diversity’ is a driver of innovation and creativity. Other civilizations with low crime and social harmony (like the Scandinavian nations) share many of these traits.
Commodore Perry had something to do with that transition. Sans the black ships of America, it’s Japan might well be like North Korea today.
At what cost did this transformation occur though? They’ve got millions of youngsters who don’t leave the house; sky-high suicide rates; scores of highly-educated women who reject marriage altogether; the highest proportion of 30-year-olds who’ve never experienced physical intimacy of anywhere in the developed world.
Europe is not faring well but neither is Japan.
I would like to see those birth rate statistics, sounds dubious
I can only find Italy, Spain and Greece that are believed to have similar or worse birth rates than Japan.
The ONS estimate TFR (total fertility rate, births per number of women 15-44) by birth place of parents. In the UK it is 1.54 for UK born women and 2.03 for non-UK born women. C.f. Japan’s is 1.34, with negligible foreign born women, not much lower than UK born women.
About 29% of UK births are to non-UK born women. However, many of the UK born women giving birth had parents who were not UK born, and in fact 40% of babies born are of an ethnic minority, a strong indicator that they’re children of 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants.
Without immigration, the numbers of babies being born now would be at least 40% lower. But the UK female population aged 15-44 would only be about 20% smaller without immigration. This means without immigration since 1950 onward the UK TFR would be less than 1.8×0.6/0.8 = 1.35.
The demographic change in the UK is rapid and without parallel in history.
I can only find Italy, Spain and Greece that are believed to have similar or worse birth rates than Japan.
The ONS estimate TFR (total fertility rate, births per number of women 15-44) by birth place of parents. In the UK it is 1.54 for UK born women and 2.03 for non-UK born women. C.f. Japan’s is 1.34, with negligible foreign born women, not much lower than UK born women.
About 29% of UK births are to non-UK born women. However, many of the UK born women giving birth had parents who were not UK born, and in fact 40% of babies born are of an ethnic minority, a strong indicator that they’re children of 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants.
Without immigration, the numbers of babies being born now would be at least 40% lower. But the UK female population aged 15-44 would only be about 20% smaller without immigration. This means without immigration since 1950 onward the UK TFR would be less than 1.8×0.6/0.8 = 1.35.
The demographic change in the UK is rapid and without parallel in history.
Canada brought in an additional 950,000 people last year in the form of permanent residents, immigrants, visiting students, etc. The countries media and political class is finally starting to acknowledge that this is the main factor driving out of control housing costs (Canada has the worst in the world). It also impacts our health care system, schools, drives down wages (particularly foreign worker programs). It is getting so bad that many permanent residents (like 40%) are choosing not to become citizens and are deciding to return home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country
Japan’s birthrate is lower than nearly every industrialized country in the world. While their xenophobia certainly makes the crisis worse, Japan does not have a higher birthrate than the majority of Western countries.
Not wishing to change their culture isn’t ‘xenophobic’
Not wishing to change their culture isn’t ‘xenophobic’
I have every confidence that the Japanese will find the correct solution.
After all they managed to transform themselves from a Medieval ‘head chopping’ society to a major industrial power in fairly short order in the late 19 century.
This was no mean feat, whilst contemporary China and the rest of Asia stagnated.
I would like to see those birth rate statistics, sounds dubious
Canada brought in an additional 950,000 people last year in the form of permanent residents, immigrants, visiting students, etc. The countries media and political class is finally starting to acknowledge that this is the main factor driving out of control housing costs (Canada has the worst in the world). It also impacts our health care system, schools, drives down wages (particularly foreign worker programs). It is getting so bad that many permanent residents (like 40%) are choosing not to become citizens and are deciding to return home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/birth-rate-by-country
Japan’s birthrate is lower than nearly every industrialized country in the world. While their xenophobia certainly makes the crisis worse, Japan does not have a higher birthrate than the majority of Western countries.
If we discount migrants, Japan acrually has a higher birth rate than the vast majority of western countries. For cultural reasons Japan will not import a million foreigners a year as we have been doing. We are not exactly better off for it. Higher GDP, but a low trust, high crime society where nobody can buy a house or get married.
Not sure what the problem is: One day the Merchants of Doom, say AI is going to take all our jobs, the next day they moan that there will be too few people to do all the jobs. My guess is that the two will cancel each other out, and all will be well (as long as we don’t panic.)
And fewer people means less industrial demand, less man made carbon dioxide, and more polar bears….
Or is it, as you infer, we have so many ‘apocalypses’ and ‘catastrophes’ competing for attention that they are beginning to cancel out.
Sure and here in America fewer people to pay into social security and healthcare and insurance. Don’t have children to advocate for you if you become infirm? be prepared to sit in a corner wearing adult diapers or getting beaten or stolen from by the low wage workers brought in by the govt. of course there’s always assisted suicide which will be continually suggested by our dear leaders to take the burden off. Yah all upside from here.
Sure and here in America fewer people to pay into social security and healthcare and insurance. Don’t have children to advocate for you if you become infirm? be prepared to sit in a corner wearing adult diapers or getting beaten or stolen from by the low wage workers brought in by the govt. of course there’s always assisted suicide which will be continually suggested by our dear leaders to take the burden off. Yah all upside from here.
As long as you believe in both “catastrophes” then they cancel each other out. There is only a problem if you just believe in one of the two.
How then will they be able to raise the funds needed to live a cushy NGO life style, without predicting doom and gloom?
The AI problem is much more serious than job replacement.
And fewer people means less industrial demand, less man made carbon dioxide, and more polar bears….
Or is it, as you infer, we have so many ‘apocalypses’ and ‘catastrophes’ competing for attention that they are beginning to cancel out.
As long as you believe in both “catastrophes” then they cancel each other out. There is only a problem if you just believe in one of the two.
How then will they be able to raise the funds needed to live a cushy NGO life style, without predicting doom and gloom?
The AI problem is much more serious than job replacement.
Not sure what the problem is: One day the Merchants of Doom, say AI is going to take all our jobs, the next day they moan that there will be too few people to do all the jobs. My guess is that the two will cancel each other out, and all will be well (as long as we don’t panic.)
You would think that writer would ask the question of how successful the UK’s 9 million population growth in 25 years has been in improving living standards and quality of life compared to Japan’s 1 million population decline – But clearly not! Did someone say UK had a labour workforce shortage?
Indeed – overall GDP doesn’t matter, it’s GDP per head that really counts.
Indeed – overall GDP doesn’t matter, it’s GDP per head that really counts.
You would think that writer would ask the question of how successful the UK’s 9 million population growth in 25 years has been in improving living standards and quality of life compared to Japan’s 1 million population decline – But clearly not! Did someone say UK had a labour workforce shortage?
As I see it a major change as demographics develop will be a move towards high paying jobs that need a pair if hands to do.
So; skilled tradespeople and carers for example will be in high demand and those “white collar” jobs such as accountancy and that ilk will become less profitable as automated programmes and AI develop.
As I see it a major change as demographics develop will be a move towards high paying jobs that need a pair if hands to do.
So; skilled tradespeople and carers for example will be in high demand and those “white collar” jobs such as accountancy and that ilk will become less profitable as automated programmes and AI develop.
I know I’m a stuck record, but young people, to some degree (we can argue over the extent) are choosing not to have children because it’s too expensive and looks like a drag. Those who are hell bent on owning ALL the wealth have sucked up too much of it and left us fighting over the scraps in a hellscape that you’d have to be rich or stupid to bring a child into. I might have over-egged that a bit, but you get my drift.
I’d go further. When housing is so ruinously expensive and you don’t have an exceptional salary or inherited wealth, it’s more like being deprived of the choice rather than choosing not to have children.
I have begun to wonder whether the taxpayer shouldn’t subsidise house purchases for married British couples under 30.
If the women that currently don’t have kids were married and having kids, we would have a birth rate over 2.1 and have no need to import labour.
Why don’t they have kids? I suspect both young men and women feel no pressure from society to get hitched and get making babies in their twenties.
Could we turn this round with a big incentive?
I’d go further. When housing is so ruinously expensive and you don’t have an exceptional salary or inherited wealth, it’s more like being deprived of the choice rather than choosing not to have children.
I have begun to wonder whether the taxpayer shouldn’t subsidise house purchases for married British couples under 30.
If the women that currently don’t have kids were married and having kids, we would have a birth rate over 2.1 and have no need to import labour.
Why don’t they have kids? I suspect both young men and women feel no pressure from society to get hitched and get making babies in their twenties.
Could we turn this round with a big incentive?
I know I’m a stuck record, but young people, to some degree (we can argue over the extent) are choosing not to have children because it’s too expensive and looks like a drag. Those who are hell bent on owning ALL the wealth have sucked up too much of it and left us fighting over the scraps in a hellscape that you’d have to be rich or stupid to bring a child into. I might have over-egged that a bit, but you get my drift.
OK, let’s talk about depopulation. No problem because there will always be people to come to our shores to do the work!! A depopulation on a global basis sounds right. The Earth will be saved. Hurray!
But what life will babies born today see in 50 years’ time? Will it be a life to enjoy or a life of abject misery? They will be forced to eat certain foods (Save the Planet!!). They will be forced to wear certain clothes. Travel might be limited. Entertainment from screens only. Presumably, religions will return but will there be a freedom to choose religion?
But, certain people – perhaps the rich, perhaps the Governors, perhaps the religious leaders – will not have to live in this way. They will have privileges. Remind me, why are we saving the planet? Maybe for Attenborough’s lizards.
Not sure I see your logic, but maybe it’s just the definition of terms. Abject misery because we’ll only be able to eat ‘certain foods’? I suspect this is about insect protein or whatever, but why? If there were fewer of us, we could go on eating whatever we like – probably less of it imported, but that’s ok. No problem with travel being limited, it is already for almost everybody, tho of course we all get irritated by the cruise liners in Venice. Entertainment only on screens? Hardly- there’ll always be Morris dancing, and you rarely get that on a screen in the first place. Or you could join a choir…
Most activities only become inimical to life on the planet when everyone wants them now at once and always, and when there a couple of billion people too many able to make that demand.
The real problem of course is that population decline is wickedly hard to manage, and we have allowed Western populations to get too old. Tough times ahead.
What a curiously bleak outlook. Liberalism doesn’t just go into reverse, it’s embedded into our culture so we do value the freedom of choices and lifestyles. No doubt change does and need to occur and many factors will drive that – I suspect that AI may counteract some of the problems created by depopulation, if used correctly.
But great to see you highlight biodiversity too, overpopulation and consumption has caused untold habitat destruction, so yes, we should care very much about endangered species.
You seem awfully certain about that. A big assumption that your third world immigrants are going to just shed their culture and embrace yours.
You seem awfully certain about that. A big assumption that your third world immigrants are going to just shed their culture and embrace yours.
Not sure I see your logic, but maybe it’s just the definition of terms. Abject misery because we’ll only be able to eat ‘certain foods’? I suspect this is about insect protein or whatever, but why? If there were fewer of us, we could go on eating whatever we like – probably less of it imported, but that’s ok. No problem with travel being limited, it is already for almost everybody, tho of course we all get irritated by the cruise liners in Venice. Entertainment only on screens? Hardly- there’ll always be Morris dancing, and you rarely get that on a screen in the first place. Or you could join a choir…
Most activities only become inimical to life on the planet when everyone wants them now at once and always, and when there a couple of billion people too many able to make that demand.
The real problem of course is that population decline is wickedly hard to manage, and we have allowed Western populations to get too old. Tough times ahead.
What a curiously bleak outlook. Liberalism doesn’t just go into reverse, it’s embedded into our culture so we do value the freedom of choices and lifestyles. No doubt change does and need to occur and many factors will drive that – I suspect that AI may counteract some of the problems created by depopulation, if used correctly.
But great to see you highlight biodiversity too, overpopulation and consumption has caused untold habitat destruction, so yes, we should care very much about endangered species.
OK, let’s talk about depopulation. No problem because there will always be people to come to our shores to do the work!! A depopulation on a global basis sounds right. The Earth will be saved. Hurray!
But what life will babies born today see in 50 years’ time? Will it be a life to enjoy or a life of abject misery? They will be forced to eat certain foods (Save the Planet!!). They will be forced to wear certain clothes. Travel might be limited. Entertainment from screens only. Presumably, religions will return but will there be a freedom to choose religion?
But, certain people – perhaps the rich, perhaps the Governors, perhaps the religious leaders – will not have to live in this way. They will have privileges. Remind me, why are we saving the planet? Maybe for Attenborough’s lizards.
Pollution, environmental degradation, habitat loss, water scarcity, climate change, soil degradation, desertification, extinctions, the list goes on and on and on. All caused by human activity and overpopulation, it’s quite peculiar the author chooses to create a narrative to suggest otherwise. Declining birth rates should be celebrated and embraced to give rise to a new culture that does not pursue economic growth above all else.
Exactly!
What an apposite remark from darkest Devon, well said Sir.
Thank you. Not everyone agrees it seems, but they don’t say why. Come on folks, discuss.
I seem to recall that over population coupled with ‘ environmental ‘degradation’ on a titanic scale did for both Mayan and Khmer civilisation, to name but two!
I gather that even the ‘sainted’ David Attenborough thinks over population is the primary problem, but has been forced to ‘shut up’.
Attenborough is secretly quite sound but he knows which side his bread is buttered and toes the progressive line when he has to.
The evidence:
1) He believes that global warming is really a symptom of over-population. The rise in average global temp by 1C has occurred as the world’s population has gone from 1B in 1850 to 8B today, so it seems clear enough to me too.
2) He is a long-term patron of Population Matters which, until recently, campaigned against mass immigration and for refugees to be housed in countries local to the disaster rather than being shipped to the west. From their website in 2013:
3) He resisted calls for him to declare himself an atheist and made a great analogy about his experience slicing off the top of a termite hill and the blind termites not being aware that he is watching them. He said it is possible that, like them, we don’t have the senses to detect things outside our immediate “reality”.
4) He probably voted to leave the EU, though he very rightly refuses to be drawn on how he voted by journalists. From 2019:
5) He was very resistant to calls to make global warming the central cause of environmentalism and was a climate sceptic until 2006. I suspect he thinks over-population is the real problem and the focus on fossil fuels is grasping the working end of the stick. Maybe the treatment of the other David – David Bellamy who lost his TV career for being an outspoken global warming and EU sceptic – convinced him to not bite the woke hand that fed him.
Very interesting and heartening information about DA. I am a committed environmentalist but have always felt that the almost religious focus on climate change has been a case of grasping the wrong end of the stick. Its effect has been to ignore the threats of human over-population and the poor management of resources and habitat. I am also heartened that we seem to be on the brink of global reductions in population. Less people = less pressure on the environment.
Climate change has become a religion. Tiny increases in global average temperatures caused – possibly – CO2 emissions are nothing to worry about.
Here’s something to really worry about:
https://youtu.be/9vRtA7STvH4
Overpopulation is clearly the issue but does it matter if the human race experiences a dramatic fall on population, or even becomes extinct? We’re just another species after all.
Very interesting and heartening information about DA. I am a committed environmentalist but have always felt that the almost religious focus on climate change has been a case of grasping the wrong end of the stick. Its effect has been to ignore the threats of human over-population and the poor management of resources and habitat. I am also heartened that we seem to be on the brink of global reductions in population. Less people = less pressure on the environment.
Climate change has become a religion. Tiny increases in global average temperatures caused – possibly – CO2 emissions are nothing to worry about.
Here’s something to really worry about:
https://youtu.be/9vRtA7STvH4
Overpopulation is clearly the issue but does it matter if the human race experiences a dramatic fall on population, or even becomes extinct? We’re just another species after all.
Attenborough is secretly quite sound but he knows which side his bread is buttered and toes the progressive line when he has to.
The evidence:
1) He believes that global warming is really a symptom of over-population. The rise in average global temp by 1C has occurred as the world’s population has gone from 1B in 1850 to 8B today, so it seems clear enough to me too.
2) He is a long-term patron of Population Matters which, until recently, campaigned against mass immigration and for refugees to be housed in countries local to the disaster rather than being shipped to the west. From their website in 2013:
3) He resisted calls for him to declare himself an atheist and made a great analogy about his experience slicing off the top of a termite hill and the blind termites not being aware that he is watching them. He said it is possible that, like them, we don’t have the senses to detect things outside our immediate “reality”.
4) He probably voted to leave the EU, though he very rightly refuses to be drawn on how he voted by journalists. From 2019:
5) He was very resistant to calls to make global warming the central cause of environmentalism and was a climate sceptic until 2006. I suspect he thinks over-population is the real problem and the focus on fossil fuels is grasping the working end of the stick. Maybe the treatment of the other David – David Bellamy who lost his TV career for being an outspoken global warming and EU sceptic – convinced him to not bite the woke hand that fed him.
There is no discussion if you call people names. I could type 500 words and your discussion would be limited to, “You’re just a denier.” That isn’t a discussion, that is a mantra – something almost religious which you were taught to say.
Referring to different generations as millenials, boomers or Gen X is not ‘calling them names’ or designed as an insult.
As I have said to you many times, I challenge you to say ‘old people’ instead of boomers. The word you choose is a weasel word and if you had the guts, as a group, to say ‘old people’ then you would get a lot of resistance. But you continue to hide. How can you save the planet if you are afraid of words?
Seems to me it’s more informative to refer to generations in discussions, after all younger folk such as Gen Alpha no doubt consider us all ‘old people’. I’ve no inclination to save the planet either, that’s in Greta’s capable hands.
Oh, that’s OK then. Now I feel better.
There’s a Gen Alpha now? I can’t keep up.
Oh, that’s OK then. Now I feel better.
There’s a Gen Alpha now? I can’t keep up.
Seems to me it’s more informative to refer to generations in discussions, after all younger folk such as Gen Alpha no doubt consider us all ‘old people’. I’ve no inclination to save the planet either, that’s in Greta’s capable hands.
As I have said to you many times, I challenge you to say ‘old people’ instead of boomers. The word you choose is a weasel word and if you had the guts, as a group, to say ‘old people’ then you would get a lot of resistance. But you continue to hide. How can you save the planet if you are afraid of words?
Referring to different generations as millenials, boomers or Gen X is not ‘calling them names’ or designed as an insult.
I seem to recall that over population coupled with ‘ environmental ‘degradation’ on a titanic scale did for both Mayan and Khmer civilisation, to name but two!
I gather that even the ‘sainted’ David Attenborough thinks over population is the primary problem, but has been forced to ‘shut up’.
There is no discussion if you call people names. I could type 500 words and your discussion would be limited to, “You’re just a denier.” That isn’t a discussion, that is a mantra – something almost religious which you were taught to say.
Thank you. Not everyone agrees it seems, but they don’t say why. Come on folks, discuss.
yup – bring on ‘Logan’s Run’ – but at age ?? 60 ….
It’s got potential, but only if I get a pass, I’m too young to go!!
It’s got potential, but only if I get a pass, I’m too young to go!!
You are perfectly free to be the first volunteer to help hasten depopulation. But then again, we are all only one solar flare, volcanic eruption or asteroid hit away from solving the problem.
If this were true, then environmental destruction and extinctions would be equal across the planet. But that is not so. Western democracies protect the environment much better than developing or undeveloped nations.
So the issue is not extinctions “Caused by humans” but extinction caused by BAD POLICIES which exacerbate poverty. Western democracies enjoy the beauty and variety of nature as a quality of life, so they use their voice to balance industry with clean air, water etc.
Poor countries are not poor because “people are bad” but because they live under despotic regimes who perpetuate poverty to control the masses. So the best way to save the planet is to help poor countries to establish democracy, industrialize, get educated and get wealthy, so that they learn to look after their environment. Their birth rate then drops because empowered families don’t need 10 children to make sure some survive. The secret is empowerment.
It’s going to be a rough contraction and a lot of suffering. We are not going to go gently into that good night. Louise Perry had an interesting take – North Korea has a continuing birth rate although low will be sustained for awhile; South Korea doesn’t come close to reproducing itself, well if the north decides to invade the south after the collapse there won’t have enough men to defend itself against a takeover of the country. Such is human nature. The good news is that Christians will thrive.
Exactly!
What an apposite remark from darkest Devon, well said Sir.
yup – bring on ‘Logan’s Run’ – but at age ?? 60 ….
You are perfectly free to be the first volunteer to help hasten depopulation. But then again, we are all only one solar flare, volcanic eruption or asteroid hit away from solving the problem.
If this were true, then environmental destruction and extinctions would be equal across the planet. But that is not so. Western democracies protect the environment much better than developing or undeveloped nations.
So the issue is not extinctions “Caused by humans” but extinction caused by BAD POLICIES which exacerbate poverty. Western democracies enjoy the beauty and variety of nature as a quality of life, so they use their voice to balance industry with clean air, water etc.
Poor countries are not poor because “people are bad” but because they live under despotic regimes who perpetuate poverty to control the masses. So the best way to save the planet is to help poor countries to establish democracy, industrialize, get educated and get wealthy, so that they learn to look after their environment. Their birth rate then drops because empowered families don’t need 10 children to make sure some survive. The secret is empowerment.
It’s going to be a rough contraction and a lot of suffering. We are not going to go gently into that good night. Louise Perry had an interesting take – North Korea has a continuing birth rate although low will be sustained for awhile; South Korea doesn’t come close to reproducing itself, well if the north decides to invade the south after the collapse there won’t have enough men to defend itself against a takeover of the country. Such is human nature. The good news is that Christians will thrive.
Pollution, environmental degradation, habitat loss, water scarcity, climate change, soil degradation, desertification, extinctions, the list goes on and on and on. All caused by human activity and overpopulation, it’s quite peculiar the author chooses to create a narrative to suggest otherwise. Declining birth rates should be celebrated and embraced to give rise to a new culture that does not pursue economic growth above all else.
The UK increases its population at an alarming rate. Around0.4/ 0.5m a year. Mostly immigration and some ageing. Virtually none of these additions pay enough tax to cover the cost of their own public service needs. It may increase gross GDP – but not GDP per capita-which is what matters.
Population growth is making the UK poorer.
The UK increases its population at an alarming rate. Around0.4/ 0.5m a year. Mostly immigration and some ageing. Virtually none of these additions pay enough tax to cover the cost of their own public service needs. It may increase gross GDP – but not GDP per capita-which is what matters.
Population growth is making the UK poorer.
Assuming that the gender & identity trend – which if followed through to conclusion, essentially amounts to large-scale spaying – will result in similar outcomes for Western societies.
China is having to keep an eye on things, in order to keep gender politics out, since an ageing population goes against their military hopes.
But it turns out real Communists are better at cancelling than the Gramscian Transatollahs are. They just disable university LGBT group’s WeChat accounts.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Ironically it’s the empowerment of women not gay people that lead to lower birth rates. Nice reference to ‘spaying’ however.
That’s exactly what promotion of LGBQT ideology is about, and why it runs parallel to climate justice narratives.
I’m just baffled as to how you link those two things, other than it’s two subjects that get your back up and therefore lumped together.
I’m just baffled as to how you link those two things, other than it’s two subjects that get your back up and therefore lumped together.
Yes but many of those empowered women end up childless but not by choice. It’s a thing. Trust me I know.
That’s exactly what promotion of LGBQT ideology is about, and why it runs parallel to climate justice narratives.
Yes but many of those empowered women end up childless but not by choice. It’s a thing. Trust me I know.
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Ironically it’s the empowerment of women not gay people that lead to lower birth rates. Nice reference to ‘spaying’ however.
Assuming that the gender & identity trend – which if followed through to conclusion, essentially amounts to large-scale spaying – will result in similar outcomes for Western societies.
China is having to keep an eye on things, in order to keep gender politics out, since an ageing population goes against their military hopes.
But it turns out real Communists are better at cancelling than the Gramscian Transatollahs are. They just disable university LGBT group’s WeChat accounts.
Good to see Ehrlich and the Club of Rome are now warning us about population decline. It makes me more optimistic about the future because they gave been wrong about everything.
Good to see Ehrlich and the Club of Rome are now warning us about population decline. It makes me more optimistic about the future because they gave been wrong about everything.
The mass migration from Africa and the Muslim world into Europe has interesting consequences. First, each immigrant is typically moving from a low per capita carbon footprint country to a high one. Secondly, their birth rate, contrary to the claims of liberal demographers, increases. For example, a typical Bangladeshi couple moving to the UK has twice as many children as a typical couple back in Bangladesh.
The mass migration from Africa and the Muslim world into Europe has interesting consequences. First, each immigrant is typically moving from a low per capita carbon footprint country to a high one. Secondly, their birth rate, contrary to the claims of liberal demographers, increases. For example, a typical Bangladeshi couple moving to the UK has twice as many children as a typical couple back in Bangladesh.
It’s clear that population growth slows as societies become richer. It’s been clear for decades. Women’s rights etc are a by-product of that, not a cause. Yet the doomsters are still trying to destroy wealth in the name of saving the planet.
It’s clear that population growth slows as societies become richer. It’s been clear for decades. Women’s rights etc are a by-product of that, not a cause. Yet the doomsters are still trying to destroy wealth in the name of saving the planet.
My degree is in economics. I fear many of our “laws” of economics and sociology are (unbeknownst to us) actually predicated on a growing population.
Plagues are not a comparison point. War is not a comparison point. These events are local / regional and relatively short (a few years). Widespread, structural depopulation, without societal collapse, has never occurred in human history. The idea that we can predict the effects with any certainty is hubris.
My degree is in economics. I fear many of our “laws” of economics and sociology are (unbeknownst to us) actually predicated on a growing population.
Plagues are not a comparison point. War is not a comparison point. These events are local / regional and relatively short (a few years). Widespread, structural depopulation, without societal collapse, has never occurred in human history. The idea that we can predict the effects with any certainty is hubris.
An aging population makes it so much harder to pay for pensions, health and social services and such. Just look at dependency ratios in France and Macron’s enormous problems in staving off disasters. Can Japan do better? Its national debt is already, what, 200 percent of GDP or worse? But will India save the world, like it has saved the UK cabinet?
It is only a problem because the West in general chose to create unfunded welfare states and not actually save for pensions, preferring to take the funding for these from the next generation. These were all avoidable problems. Countries like Singapore with sovereign wealth funds are not making these errors and do not run bloated welfare states. Ironically bassed on values they inherited from the West and which we foolishly abandoned.
Instead we just wasted the income from North Sea oil.
Like many here, I don’t have a problem with a stable or declining population. Better environment, affordable housing, higher GDP per head. Looks like a net win to me.
I somewhat naively believed in all the COVID nonsense, and eagerly looked forward to a UK population reduction of between 30-40%!
Sadly I was to be sorely disappointed.
Still there is always ‘next’ time to look forward to.
I somewhat naively believed in all the COVID nonsense, and eagerly looked forward to a UK population reduction of between 30-40%!
Sadly I was to be sorely disappointed.
Still there is always ‘next’ time to look forward to.
It is only a problem because the West in general chose to create unfunded welfare states and not actually save for pensions, preferring to take the funding for these from the next generation. These were all avoidable problems. Countries like Singapore with sovereign wealth funds are not making these errors and do not run bloated welfare states. Ironically bassed on values they inherited from the West and which we foolishly abandoned.
Instead we just wasted the income from North Sea oil.
Like many here, I don’t have a problem with a stable or declining population. Better environment, affordable housing, higher GDP per head. Looks like a net win to me.
An aging population makes it so much harder to pay for pensions, health and social services and such. Just look at dependency ratios in France and Macron’s enormous problems in staving off disasters. Can Japan do better? Its national debt is already, what, 200 percent of GDP or worse? But will India save the world, like it has saved the UK cabinet?
The subtext of every David Attenborough nature program is “wogs begin at Calais”. The death of poor people is everywhere encouraged by the policies promoted by the green agenda.
He’s only out by about 21 miles.
Not bad for 96!
He’s only out by about 21 miles.
Not bad for 96!
The subtext of every David Attenborough nature program is “wogs begin at Calais”. The death of poor people is everywhere encouraged by the policies promoted by the green agenda.
What I don’t understand is why the fertility rates in India and Bangladesh are declining to below replacement rate, but Pakistan’s is still much more than replacement rate.
Feudalism in the latter?
No. Two ruling dynastic cults, the Sharifs and the Bhuttos, more interested in looting the country than solving its problems.
Religion. Specifically strict Islam vs Hinduism.
Birthrate is negatively correlated with rising incomes. But in modern times, rising incomes are also correlated with a decline in organized religious observances. Sociologists think that rising incomes shrink birthrates, but this never made sense to me, since family size is essentially cultural. I suspect what’s happening is that as secular, scientific ideas permeate the society, they both erode religious norms and also raise incomes. Smaller families are a function of reclining religious piety, which happens to be correlated with rising incomes.
This is why economic incentives to have larger families have never worked anywhere they’ve been tried in the world. Demography is culture not economics.
Bangladesh is a Muslim country.
Bangladesh is a Muslim country.
No. Two ruling dynastic cults, the Sharifs and the Bhuttos, more interested in looting the country than solving its problems.
Religion. Specifically strict Islam vs Hinduism.
Birthrate is negatively correlated with rising incomes. But in modern times, rising incomes are also correlated with a decline in organized religious observances. Sociologists think that rising incomes shrink birthrates, but this never made sense to me, since family size is essentially cultural. I suspect what’s happening is that as secular, scientific ideas permeate the society, they both erode religious norms and also raise incomes. Smaller families are a function of reclining religious piety, which happens to be correlated with rising incomes.
This is why economic incentives to have larger families have never worked anywhere they’ve been tried in the world. Demography is culture not economics.
What I don’t understand is why the fertility rates in India and Bangladesh are declining to below replacement rate, but Pakistan’s is still much more than replacement rate.
Feudalism in the latter?
This months NatGeo magazine covers the population issue quite well. As the population ages, entire areas become sparse to the point that mobile stores must arrive to support the elderly who try to continue to live in their homes as neighbors move on or expire. They must self-care with visits from health care workers. Perhaps marginally better than being warehoused in care homes attended by uncaring staff. Clearly the Japanese are finding ways to deal with seniors that some nations can learn from at time goes on.
This months NatGeo magazine covers the population issue quite well. As the population ages, entire areas become sparse to the point that mobile stores must arrive to support the elderly who try to continue to live in their homes as neighbors move on or expire. They must self-care with visits from health care workers. Perhaps marginally better than being warehoused in care homes attended by uncaring staff. Clearly the Japanese are finding ways to deal with seniors that some nations can learn from at time goes on.
” But, as seen in Japan, this brings an entirely new host of problems. Conservative demographers such as Paul Morland and Philip Longman have argued for the economic and social catastrophes of declining birth rates combined with an ageing population, a debate that is yet to really penetrate the mainstream.”
The FT did look at this last year – it is penetrating the mainstream.
Identifying human over-population is not acceptable behaviour in today’s woke world. Most if not all the world’s environmental problems stem from too many humans. Any trend that decreases the human population should be celebrated and supported.
Consider this: at the end of WW2 the global human population was c.2,5 billion. Today (2023), only 80 years later, the humber of human beings alive exceeds 8 billion!
Sir David Attenborough used to be blunt in his condemnation of our failure to control/manage the human population. But somehow in the past 10 years he has been seduced by the Woking Class and appears to have gone silent on this subject. What a shame – his was formerly a loud voice of authority in this respect.