[saymaListserv] Fwd: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than Population Growth?

[Janet Minshall]

Dear Friends,  In my last message about refugee and immigrant 
resettlement I forgot to include the actual title of the piece.  In 
the Table of Contents it is shown as "The Importance of Remittances 
to Developing Economies".  It appears in the July 31 - August 6th 
issue of The Economist magazine in the Economics Focus section, p 66.

The message below is addressed to Stan Becker whom I have know for 
almost twenty years since he was working as an MD demographer at the 
CDC here in Atlanta and was a member of Atlanta Meeting.  He is now 
at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and gave a plenary address 
at this year's FGC Gathering.  He is most active in Quaker Earthcare 
Witness, the group that used to be Friends in Unity With Nature.

I will appreciate any responses you have time to offer  Janet




Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:05:16 -0400
To: <sbecker at jhsph.edu>
From: Janet  Minshall <jhminshall at comcast.net>
Subject: Is Population Decline A Greater Threat Now Than Population Growth?
Cc: <earthcare at yahoogroups.com>
Bcc: <Vmbra at aol.com>,<judylumb at btl.net>
X-Attachments:

Summary, Table of Contents  Foreign Affairs, Vol.83 No.3, "The Global 
Baby Bust" by Philip Longman:

"Most people think overpopulation is one of the worst dangers facing 
the globe.  In fact, the opposite is true.   As countries get richer, 
their populations age and their birthrates plummet.  And this is not 
just a problem of rich countries: the developing world is also 
getting older fast.  Falling birthrates might seem beneficial, but 
the economic and social price is too steep to pay.  The right 
policies could help turn the tide, but only if enacted before it's 
too late."


Dear Stan Becker,

Thanks for the interesting dinner conversation we shared at the FGC 
Gathering.  I was happy to learn that you had written and spoken 
about the issue of precipitous population decline in much of Western 
Europe, as well as among the US population of European descent. 
Thanks for the printout "World Population Growth:trends and 
environmental impacts".  The latest detailed discussion I've seen is 
in a very good article in the May-June '04 issue of Foreign Affairs, 
"The Global Baby Bust" by Philip Longman, pp. 64-80.  It details many 
of the threats as well as the benefits of a declining and aging 
population worldwide.  While longterm effects on the environment may 
ultimately be good, and while there may be fewer resources to enable 
war making, the enormous impact on the living standards, health and 
welfare of those people who survive may turn out to be completely 
unacceptable, i.e. a very long period of worldwide poverty and 
disease such as occurred in Europe during "the Dark Ages".  So the 
question is what can we do now to best serve the interests of the 
greatest number?  Will the dearth of babies suddenly cause the 
general public to do an about face and embrace the biotechnology of 
cloning and artificial reproduction as some blithely assume?

Continuing to focus our attention on population growth seems futile 
because we are in a position as Friends of being primarily of 
European descent and therefore we are a part of one of the fastest 
declining populations on Earth.  Those whose populations are not 
declining as quickly are people of color and people from less 
developed countries.  All of us share a common fate some years in the 
future. In the present, however, it is not appropriate for white 
people of Western European descent to be telling others not to have 
so many babies.  Actually our efforts to tell anyone what to do with 
their fertility raises issues of arrogance, racism and imperialism 
and seems not to have much effect anyway.  It has been shown 
convincingly that economic development and improvement in standards 
of living actually do influence the number of babies women choose to 
have (as shown in your World Population Growth printout).  The better 
off women are, and the more secure they feel, the fewer babies they 
have.  In fact, it might be better for the Population Concerns 
Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness (QEW) to begin the process of 
turning around our efforts to educate Friends and others not just on 
population growth, but also on the looming threat of population 
decline.  Yes, we will have 75 million more people in the world at 
the end of this year than we had at the end of last year, but that 
number is shrinking rapidly year by year and bringing us closer and 
closer to the point of balance -- of as many births as deaths in the 
world -- and the point of balance is the beginning of population 
decline and living in a no-growth economy whose tax base is rapidly 
disappearing and whose poorest people are beginning to starve. Such 
an economy could no longer provide education for our children, Social 
Security and Medicare for our elderly, or a safety net of any kind 
for those who are or will become unemployed or disabled.

I think you are aware of the refugees Atlanta Meeting sponsored as 
part of the Sanctuary Movement as well as my work with refugees and 
immigrants as Director (Regional Consultant) of Refugee and Migration 
Services for Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services in the 
Southeast US from '82 to '91. I wrote to the Quaker Earthcare Witness 
discussion list earlier today about the economic benefits of bringing 
more refugees and immigrants to the US, indicating that process would 
serve, among other things, as a delaying tactic to give us more time 
to address the terrible effects of population decline both on the 
people of the US and on those from other countries who might be 
allowed to come here to become American workers. It turns out that 
refugee and immigrant resettlement also redistributes wealth in 
significant amounts to the poorest countries whose people flee as 
refugees and immigrants due to war, famine, and poverty (see previous 
message). However, refugee and immigrant resettlement is truly a 
short term measure.  Long term we cannot hope to counter the negative 
effects of population decline and a no-growth economy in that manner. 
The scope of a population decline such as the one Longman envisions 
is potentially far too devastating to be addressed by such a simple 
solution.  It seems to me that we must start the process of sharing 
ideas and planning now for smaller scale economies, not dependent on 
population growth, worldwide.  Not doing so, not thinking about, 
facing and analyzing what might work in such a situation, is to stand 
by watching while humankind hurtles headlong toward the cliff's edge. 
If we cannot do this for the abstract greater good then we must do it 
for our children and grandchildren who will inherit the problem from 
us with even less time to prepare (that is, if we don't blow 
ourselves up with nuclear bombs or experience a global environmental 
catastrophe first).

I expect you have already read the article from Foreign Affairs cited 
above.  I'm sure it is available at the Johns Hopkins Library. 
Unfortunately, Foreign Affairs doesn't reprint whole articles online 
or I'd send it to you and everyone else on the QEW discussion list. 
I would appreciate a response as a member of the Population Concerns 
Committee of Quaker Earthcare Witness (QEW) if you feel led to make 
one. I expect others in QEW would also be interested in hearing from 
you on this matter. Any discussion is welcome.
			Best Regards,  Janet Minshall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kitenet.net/pipermail/sayma/attachments/20040815/3638403f/attachment.html>