Two Kids Enough in Philippines?

Will the Philippines adopt a two-child per family policy? (Do they need to?) According to Joseph A. D'Agostino, the UN Population Fund thinks so, as do a number of governmental leaders there. Playing off recent comments about how Western civilization has become infantilized--adults act like kids--maybe the push to reduce the number of babies can be seen ironically as "there's no room in my life for kids 'cuz I'd have to stop being a kid." Of course, there's more behind the UN push than this. Why the push to slide further down the hill toward the demographic winter being grudgingly acknowledged as imminent? Amazing: global warming alongside demographic winter.

Comments

[GL]

[C]areful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Humanae Vitae, para. 17.

[GL]

Think about what these means. If the Philippine government succeeds in enacting these measures and if every couple has no more nor no less than the two permitted children, its population (absent immigration) will slowly shrink and age. But that is not what will happen. A certain percentage of couples will be infertile. Another percentage will limit themselves to one child, especially as the economy and society further adjust to favoring fewer rather than more children. As a result, the Philippines will soon join those Asian nations which have well-below replacement rate fertility. Further, as these trend continues to expand there will be fewer and fewer sources for immigration to offset the below-replacement rate fertility. If 2.8 children is still too many for the UN and its global warming alarmists (as is the even sub-replacement rates in Britain for the radical environmentalists), the following question must be asked: At what level of sub-replacement rate fertility will these radicals be satisfied?

[Ethan C.]

I'd still like to see an overall picture of the trend in world fertility, so that I can gauge whether high rates in certain countries are likely to offset losses in other regions, and for how long.

As you might guess, my interest in this subject coincides with my curiosity about future energy economics. There are more than a few neo-Malthusians in the "peak oil" crowd who like predicting mass die-offs (dieoff.org is an apt poster child) and tend to talk of people as though we were a plague of locusts.

Here on Mere Comments, on the other hand, I tend to hear that we're dangerously close to hitting "peak humanity" as many regions begin choosing not to have children.

What I'd like to know is, are we past "peak reproduction?" When, historically, has been the time of highest global reproduction, both absolutely and per capita, and also when has been the time of highest surviving population increase (that is, birthrate minus childhood mortality rate and overall deathrate)?

I agree that lowered birthrates and longer lifespans lead to demographic crisis, and I don't see a continued expansion of the global population as a dangerous thing. What I wonder is how long places like Europe, Japan and the United States can continue to avoid demographic crisis by importing population. When will the people wells run dry?

[GL]

That opening sentence should have read "Think about what these proposed measures mean."

[GL]

Ethan,

In the "for what's it's worth department":

Four of nine people already live in countries in which the fertility rate has dipped below the replacement rate. Last year the United Nations said it thought the world's average fertility would fall below replacement by 2025. Demographers expect the global population to peak at around 10 billion (it is now 6.5 billion) by mid-century.

Problems of aging, shrinking population, THE ECONOMIST, available at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/329221_population28.html.

As of 2007 estimates, Mexico, our single largest source for immigrants, has a rapidly falling TFR of 2.39, down from 2.53 just five years ago and 6.7 in 1950. While we may still get young Mexicans migrating to the U.S. even after their homeland falls below replacement rate fertility, that will just further exacerbate the problem of where to get new influx of young workers a generation later. It is also important to note that what keep the U.S. near replacement rate fertility is the above replacement rate fertility of immigrants. Our "native-born" fertility rate is below two already.

[labrialumn]

America has twice the population it did when I was a boy.

What demographic crisis?

We've already shipped our manufacturing and a good chunk of our IT and service jobs overseas.

There are other reasons for the volkswanderuung from Mexico than an imagined lack of workers.

[GL]

Some additional interesting statistics:

• U.S. population milestones:
–1915: 100 million
–1967: 200 million
–2006: 300 million

• U.S. population as percentage of total world population:
–1915: 5.6 percent
–1967: 5.7 percent
–2006: 4.6 percent

• Median age:
–1915: 24.1
–1967: 29.5
–2006: 36.5

• Percentage of population over 65:
–1915: 4.5 percent
–1967: 9.6 percent
–2006: 12.3 percent

• Percentage of foreign born:
–1910: 14.7 percent
–1970: 4.7 percent
–2003: 11.9 percent

Conclusions: We are getting a lot older, our rate of population growth is slowing down and is doing so at a faster rate than the world as a whole, and, while off its lows from late-mid century, we still have fewer foreign born residents than we did nearly 100 years ago. As to the last point, I think it shows that fears of our being overrun by foreigners is overblown.

[Judy Warner]

GL, 1910 was in the midst of a huge wave of immigration. Americans felt they were being overrun by foreigners and immigration was pretty much stopped -- I think it was in 1924; correct me if I'm wrong -- and the country was able to catch up and assimilate all those people. Three of my four grandparents came in during that wave, and their children were completely assimilated Americans.

[GL]

That's about the right time frame. And changes in the immigration laws in the mid-1960s began the current era of renewed immigration. I expect demographics in nations from which we are currently receiving immigrants to do more than laws in the next decade or so to stem the current tide, bringing a new era of assimilation.

While my ancestors have been here a long time (almost all of them were here by the Revolution and some were here before Europeans ever knew of the place), my brother-in-law's grandparents on both sides were immigrants, including one side which came here to escape the Nazis.

[Judy Warner]

Mexicans are coming here because their economy is so bad that they cannot make a decent life at home. It is Mexican government policy to send people here to live so they can send money back to their families. I don't know a lot about Mexican politics, but I don't foresee a great improvement in the economy there. One of our goals in immigration reform should be to do something to induce change there to remove the pressure to move their population north.

[Gene Godbold]

Ethan,
I can't respond for the rest of humanity, only for my little corner of it. But, as far as my wife and I are concerned, we are definitey past "peak reproduction".
:-)

[Gene Godbold]

GL,
Do you have comparable figures for the average life expectancy in 1915, 1967 (an excellent year) and 2006?

[GL]

Gene,

See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

[GL]

Judy,

I agree 100% with your point about the need for market reforms in Mexico, but I would add, immigrants are largely coming here to work. If Mexico's economy improves significantly so that its citizen are less likely to come north, we will have to replace those workers somehow -- automation, increased productivity and getting immigrants from elsewhere are the only alternatives unless we increase our own native growth rate. At 4.6%, we already have close to full employment, with most of those without a job not being the best prospects to fill the gap.

[Gene Godbold]

Life expectancy at birth and at age 60 for white women/white men in...
~1910: 54/50, 75/74
~1967: 75/68, 81/76
2004: 81/76, 84/81

The big increase in life expectancy at birth between 1910 and 1967 is almost certainly due to improved public sanitation (read safe plumbing) and antibiotics.

[Bobby Winters]

Some scary folks on this page.

[Judy Warner]

>>>If Mexico's economy improves significantly so that its citizen are less likely to come north, we will have to replace those workers somehow -- <<<

Legal immigrants or legal guest workers would be okay with me. And people could learn to mow their own lawns.

[GL]

Legal immigrants or legal guest workers would be okay with me. And people could learn to mow their own lawns.

As to the first, I agree and believe we should be making that possible for all immigrants, including Mexicans, today. A lot of flim-flam by politicians and greed by *some* employers (who like being able to exploit illegals who have no avenue for redress) prevents this.

As to the second, I mow my own lawn -- which is nearly 1/2 acre and has a lot of trees. I am, however, looking forward to the day that I can "exploit" child labor for this purpose. In about five or six years, my son should be ready to begin his formal training as a lawn care engineer. ;-)

[GL]

Two recent pieces from the Wall Street Journal relative to fertility and immigration. Last week, the WSJ ran an op-ed piece, Diagnosis: Critical (no longer freely available online), advocating that the government permit more trained nurses to immigrate as we have a severe shortage in that field. American nursing schools are filled to the brim and are expanding as they can, but cannot keep up with the demand. Even if they could, at 4.6% unemployment, more native-born nurses would mean fewer workers for other areas of the economy, creating shortages in those areas (or, more likely, exacerbating existing shortages), creating a need for more immigrants to fill those unfilled positions.

Today, the Journal ran an article entitled Bourbon, Baseball Bats And Now the Bantu, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119006454887730236.html about Louisville, Kentucky's efforts to be welcoming to immigrants who are needed to fill unfilled jobs in their economy. The article specifically mentioned declining fertility rates as a contributing factor to the shortage of workers.

[GL]

Williams promises to pay $1,000 for every baby born or adopted in N.L.. See http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0zU3GsxGzGq8kY0Dm-hUv37hGaQ