This reminded me of an excellent short article (in Italian but Google translate does a pretty good job?) from Roberto Toninello trying to strip out the politics and look purely at the mathematics of demography and population replacement in Italy - https://www.orthosadvisory.com/tpost/s6xj7u0nn1-miracoli
Nice analysis and much if it recognisable in argument and sentiment. To add that the dutch system of proportional representation and politics as a protest voice means that Wilders' share of the vote will be volatile and dependent on solutions to problems which are not related to immigration: a civil service and politics which repeatedly failed the individual rights and needs of the least well off in society (great they are using their democratic right!). My concern is not birth rate itself but the low levels of investment in the future of the EUnas a whole: technology, productivity, new industries, experiments with universal income, etc.
The birth rate in north Korea is also below replacement rate (1.83), so capitalism/prosperity and low birth rates may be as much correlation as causation. What aspect of advanced capitalist societies, specifically, is creating this effect? If we can identify discrete causes maybe we can address them one by one. I'd like to hear more about the economic/societal/structural changes people have proposed (other than prime ministerial admonishment) to address this problem. Has anyone? I presume the wonks are noodling on this, but any ideas that trickle up (down?) to the political level end up drowned in the usual sensationalist, get-me-elected-one-more-time posturing. It certainly feels like "Don't Look Up" except the problem is population collapse.
If the Netherlands (/Denmark/Finland/Japan/not Monaco) were to allow in lots of immigrants, as Germany did once upon a time (and which I think would be a very sensible idea), what happens to the birth rate after a generation? Increasing immigration may only fix the problem for a few decades, but then once everyone is comfortable enough to stare at their phone for 8 hours a day, we'll still stuck with the (correlated?) problem of prosperity and declining birthrate. Today the second-generation Muslim population across Europe is slightly more inclined to do the pants dance, but they're still below replacement rate. (http://tinyurl.com/mr3dbyh2)
The upside to population decline will of course be less deforestation, less coal burned, fewer pesticides to run off, less pressure on fresh water sources, declining loss of species diversification, less climate-forced migration, etc. As for taking care of the elderly and figuring out what "prosperity" looks like in 2-3 generations for Holland and the rest, what are the best ideas for replacing the "capitalist compromise"?
This reminded me of an excellent short article (in Italian but Google translate does a pretty good job?) from Roberto Toninello trying to strip out the politics and look purely at the mathematics of demography and population replacement in Italy - https://www.orthosadvisory.com/tpost/s6xj7u0nn1-miracoli
Nice analysis and much if it recognisable in argument and sentiment. To add that the dutch system of proportional representation and politics as a protest voice means that Wilders' share of the vote will be volatile and dependent on solutions to problems which are not related to immigration: a civil service and politics which repeatedly failed the individual rights and needs of the least well off in society (great they are using their democratic right!). My concern is not birth rate itself but the low levels of investment in the future of the EUnas a whole: technology, productivity, new industries, experiments with universal income, etc.
The birth rate in north Korea is also below replacement rate (1.83), so capitalism/prosperity and low birth rates may be as much correlation as causation. What aspect of advanced capitalist societies, specifically, is creating this effect? If we can identify discrete causes maybe we can address them one by one. I'd like to hear more about the economic/societal/structural changes people have proposed (other than prime ministerial admonishment) to address this problem. Has anyone? I presume the wonks are noodling on this, but any ideas that trickle up (down?) to the political level end up drowned in the usual sensationalist, get-me-elected-one-more-time posturing. It certainly feels like "Don't Look Up" except the problem is population collapse.
If the Netherlands (/Denmark/Finland/Japan/not Monaco) were to allow in lots of immigrants, as Germany did once upon a time (and which I think would be a very sensible idea), what happens to the birth rate after a generation? Increasing immigration may only fix the problem for a few decades, but then once everyone is comfortable enough to stare at their phone for 8 hours a day, we'll still stuck with the (correlated?) problem of prosperity and declining birthrate. Today the second-generation Muslim population across Europe is slightly more inclined to do the pants dance, but they're still below replacement rate. (http://tinyurl.com/mr3dbyh2)
The upside to population decline will of course be less deforestation, less coal burned, fewer pesticides to run off, less pressure on fresh water sources, declining loss of species diversification, less climate-forced migration, etc. As for taking care of the elderly and figuring out what "prosperity" looks like in 2-3 generations for Holland and the rest, what are the best ideas for replacing the "capitalist compromise"?