Tag: population

Categories
general freedom international affairs too much government

The Population Implosion

Elon Musk

At the risk of turning Common Sense with Paul Jacob into Common Sense About Elon Musk, consider the second best thing about Musk’s Twitter preoccupation: his own tweets.

“At risk of stating the obvious, unless something changes to cause the birth rate to exceed the death rate, Japan will eventually cease to exist,” Musk posted on Saturday. “This would be a great loss for the world.”

A very significant observation, at odds with so much of the Official Narrative of Approved Subjects and Opinions.

Recognizing that depopulation is the big problem for the developed nations of the world, not over-population rubs up against most of what we’ve been told for years.

But it’s true.

Japan is not alone, here, in showing a demographic collapse. It’s merely the most advanced in population decline. Russia is in a bad way, and many European countries’ native populations are in zero population growth. The United States, too, is growing only because of immigration, legal and illegal.

Behind the numbers, though, is a disturbing reality: the instability of our welfare state policies. In America, and in most advanced nations, government-run social pension programs require a growing population to properly service. Yet, Social Security, by removing the need to have children as a natural safety net (where we beget offspring to help take care of us in old age), actually disincentivizes the population growth that might make the system sustainable.

 Elon Musk did not offer a fix. But by pointing to a very real problem, he’s done us a great service, speaking simple truth instead of propaganda.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom media and media people national politics & policies

The Ex-Explosion

Margaret Sanger, population, progressivism, panic, birth rate,

When I was a kid, the trendy worry was “the population bomb.” Now we are supposed to worry about a population . . . fizzle?

“The U.S. birth rate has hit a new record low,” writes Peter Dockrill in Science Alert, “with women in nearly every age group giving birth to fewer babies than a year ago.” Titled “U.S. Fertility Rates Have Plummeted Into Uncharted Territory, And Nobody Knows Why,” Dockrill’s article fails to mention that diminishing population by reduced reproduction is an old worry.

It fanned the flames of eugenics and racism in Europe and America in the first half of the 20th century. Progressivism was full of this concern, in its heyday.*

As societies get wealthier, reproduction rates decrease. Economist Theodore W. Schultz called it the swapping of “quantity of children” for “quality of children.” This appears to be a natural, voluntary sort of eugenics — which scares actual eugenicists.

The study that Science Alert focused on fingered a different cause: lead in the environment. Over at Reason, Ronald Bailey sees some plausibility in this Lead Poison Theory. But mostly, Bailey writes, population rates in America (and elsewhere) are declining “largely because Americans are choosing to have fewer children.”

Is this really a problem?

Well, for Big Government it is.** German’s demographic collapse appears to have been one factor prodding Angela Merkel to open the doors to millions of refugees — whom Europe seems to have more trouble assimilating than does America.

I like kids — both making and rearing them. But to each his or her own, of course. Still, maybe if people freaked out less about population explosions, the implosion would prove less serious.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Before progressivism changed its name to “liberalism.” And now back. Oh, and note that the Nazis’ more famous eugenic programs were not identical to progressives.

** Ponzi-based safety-net pension systems worldwide were designed for growing populations. Oops!

PDF for printing

(Illustration from Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control Review” from 1918.)

Categories
Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Population to Government, “Hello”

population, government planning, social security, ponzi, illustration

Government “central planning”? I’m against it.

But it’s socialism, fascism, and allied isms that I oppose. I’m not against “government planning.”

We could use some.

Take population. When government sets up complicated institutions, like Social Security or Medicare, those institutions must match the general trend of the number and make-up of those served.

Or else fail spectacularly.

But as everyone knows, Social Security was set up when the population was growing, and expected to continue . . . at a positive rate. The whole logic of the system depended on population growth.

What if populations shrink?

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now reports that the general U.S. “fertility rate has dropped back to its all time low of 62.5 children per 1,000 American women ages 15 to 44 years,” informs science writer Ronald Bailey.

The “total fertility” rate is now “1.84 children over the course of an American woman’s lifetime.”

A steady-state population replacement rate is thought to be 2.1 children per woman.

Trouble is, if your main institutions depend on population growth, and instead, population declines, things are liable to go catawampus.

No wonder European nations, which are undergoing even more startling negative population growth, flirt with allowing huge influxes of hard-to-assimilate refugees. At the back of governmental minds may be: how do we keep going?

Some of today’s social anxiety may have to do with this shift in population growth, and government strategy.

Before politicians try to plan a whole industry — like, say, “single-payer” medical services — maybe they should learn how to arrange the existing government, to accommodate the direction society demonstrably wants to go.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul is Jacob.

Printable PDF

population, government planning, social security, ponzi, illustration

 

Categories
folly nannyism national politics & policies

Doom Fails to Arrive on Schedule

DOOM

Doom is not always bad. I’d appreciate the doom of nonsensical doomsaying, for instance. . . although I doubt that that glorious day will dawn anytime soon.

Equally unlikely is an apology from ABC and Chris Cuomo for pitching, back in 2008, a muddled ABC special, “Earth 2100,” about all the disasters expected to arrive by 2015, among other years.

The idea? Forecast the harm inflicted by allegedly man-made global warming and collateral calamities, via the scientific methodology of being safely vague or just making stuff up. One way the network secured data was to ask viewers to pretend they’re in the future and then “report back.” (Well, it was 2008, a more primitive era. They did things like this back then.)

Here’s a sample of what ABC purveyed as possibly impending:

  • “Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.” (Time for air conditioning and/or heat!)
  • “We’ve got more people, less and less resources. That’s a recipe for disaster.” (Let markets be fully unfettered so we can be sure to get more and more instead!)
  • “It’s June 8, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.” (Unless that’s a big carton, no. Try $3 or $4 a gallon.)
  • “We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.” (Good work, Nostradamus!)

We still get storms. (Always had ’em; always will.) And inflationary Fed policy and other bad governance still swirl on the horizon. So let’s have shelter, fire departments, umbrellas, and market-friendlier policies; and let’s not reside on hurricane-prone beaches.

Thanks for the heads-up, Chris.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

DOOM

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom

People Power

How many people does it take to run a civilization?

Lots.

And the more things you are doing — the more productive and wealthier you want your civilization to be — the more people it can use.

It’s people who do things. Without people, the things won’t get done. People aren’t the problem, they’re the solution.

But the non-problem of “too many” people bothers Jonathan Porritt, a “green” advisor to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Porritt says if Britain is to feed its population “sustainably,” her population will have to be reduced to 30 million. Britain’s current population is about 61 million, twice that. So . . . do we have 31 million volunteers?

Porritt says “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.” That terrible pressure of making it easier and easier to survive.

Industrialized, capitalistic countries are often slammed for consuming a disproportionate share of the world’s economic output.

Less often mentioned is that these countries also produce the lion’s share of the output. They can do so to the extent that people with brains and initiative are free to function. Free to work, keep what they earn, benefit from planning ahead. Let people be free, and they’ll feed themselves fine. They will expand resources.

You want to “sustain” economic development, Mr. Government Official? Get out of the way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.