World Population

This evening I got into a discussion with someone about the size of families. She was adamant that any parents having more than 2 children, except in the case of twins, triplets, etc. was extremely selfish. I asked her why. She responded with two words: "Overpopulation Problems".

A few years ago I would have blindly nodded and said, "Yes, you're right." But then I read Mark Steyn's landmark book, America Alone. What I learned is that there is an overpopulation problem in the 3rd World but in the so-called 1st World, there's actually a HUGE population deficit. When I say such a thing, many people don't believe me. So let me present you with some a completely neutral source: NationMaster.com

The table I've referred you to is "Total fertility rate", which is the number of children born to each woman. In order for a population to not shrink or grow, the rate needs to be 2.1 on average. Why this value? Every man & woman need to have 2 children in order to "replace" themselves. But because of premature deaths and people not procreating, there have to be a few more babies born. That's where the '2.1' number comes from. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation, click here.

So what do the numbers reveal? The 4 countries in the world with the highest birth rates are all poverty stricken ones in Africa:

• #1: Mali - 7.38
• #2: Niger - 7.37
• #3: Uganda - 6.84
• #4: Somalia - 6.68

And the 4 countries in the world with the lowest birth rates are tiny, wealthy ones in Asia:

• #218: Taiwan - 1.12
• #219: Singapore - 1.07
• #220: Macau - 1.03
• #221: Hong Kong - 0.98

Here are some selected countries from the list:

• #109: Mexico - 2.39
• #126: United States - 2.09
• #135: France - 1.98
• #174: United Kingdom - 1.66
• #180: Canada - 1.61
• #193: Germany - 1.4
• #194: Russia - 1.39
• #204: Italy - 1.29
• #205: Spain - 1.29
  
• #212: Japan - 1.23

So before nodding your head in similar discussions in the future, now you can pass on the actual facts of the situation.

Don't Believe The Official Line on Reducing the Population

Earlier this year I read Mark Steyn's book, "America Alone". It was absolutely phenomenal and opened my eyes to a lot of things including the huge demographic changes that will become more & more obvious with each passing year.

In this recent posting, Steyn talks about this problem in Japan and in Europe and refers to this BBC article. Japan provides the most crystal clear example of the disaster ahead. The replacement birth rate for any society is 2.1. This means that in order for a population to sustain its numbers, each couple needs to have 2 children, plus there have to be a few more born to account for:

• Homosexual couples who don't produce any children.
• Children who die from disease.
• Children who die from accidents and other untimely deaths.
• Children who move away to other countries.
  

But in 2005, Japan had a birth rate of just 1.26. This is nowhere near enough to sustain their population.

A cynic might say, "Who cares, they have too many people there right now anyhow!" Fair enough, but if a population drops too quickly then obvious problems arise:

• Economic depression.
• Lack of funds to sustain the existing social programs.
• Lack of people to take care of the elderly.

Canada is not in as bad shape as Japan but we have big problems over the horizon too. We've tried to compensate for our declining birthrate by importing people from other countries. That has worked so far - sort of - but the young skilled professionals we'd ideally like are becoming fewer in number.

The next time you hear someone condemn you for the children you've had or are planning to have, remember Japan.