John, your great-grandmother was a statistical outlier. By 1870 the average British woman was having around 5.5 children.
Britain did see a dramatic increase in population in the 19th century, but this was a consequence of technological innovation, improved agricultural productivity and the development of an international trading system that served Britain very well, not some expression of national ‘vigor’. The crowds were a symptom of Britain’s success, not a cause of it.
If we look at the period when Britain was at the peak of its self-confidence, the later Victorian and Edwardian eras, we see a rapid decline in the fertility rate. Between 1870 and 1920 the fertility level fell from that average of 5.5 to 2.4.
Mind you, if the Malthusian bullet had (for now) been dodged, it didn’t always feel like it. It is, I think, telling that the country lost more men to emigration in the decade before the outbreak of WWI than it did on the battlefields of 1914-18.
My guess is that rooting through the past to try to find civilizations that have flourished with low reproduction rates is fruitless. It ignores the changes that technology has brought (we can do more now with far fewer people), but it also doesn’t take account of the fact that those societies that did see sharp population decline normally did so as a result of devastating ‘external’ catastrophe, usually one or more of war, disease and famine. Their depopulation was the consequence, not the cause, of disaster.
High reproduction rates aren’t the cause of a civilization’s flourishing — but rather a sign of it.
Compare: Mormons in the western United States with Norwegians. Which culture is more robust, more dynamic, more entrepeneurial, more family-oriented, more future-oriented? That last part is the key, I think.
The late Victorian and the Edwardine eras were already well-slid into decadence by the time the birth rates in the UK started to fall.
Mark, is there any reason for thinking that Norwegians are not ‘future-oriented’?
Yeah, they don’t have kids.
Their fertility rate is 1.8, one of the higher levels in Western Europe, and not so far behind the not noticeably godless Irish (1.99).
Take a look at the way that Norwegians have handled their petroleum fund. Unlike many oil-rich countries, they are handling their petro-bounty in a manner *specifically* designed to provide for future generations, an attitude also visible in their attitude to Norway’s natural environment.
Living with the likelihood of a mild decline from current population levels seems an entirely reasonable decision to take. It says little or nothing about Norwegians’ views of the future.
It might be worth adding that (as anyone who has visited the country on May 17, their national day, can testify) Norwegians are a generally rather patriotic people. Patriotism and an indifference to the national future do not typically go hand in hand.
1.8 still isn’t replacement level. And how much of that 1.8 level is due to the reproductive level of Muslim and Asian immigrants?
No children = no future. One can be patriotic all one wants but at the end of the day if the society isn’t reproducing, it doesn’t have a a future. And if people are choosing not to reproduce, and even a relatively high 1.8 level indicates that they aren’t reproducing fast enough to sustain their population, then their culture is doomed. Demographics is destiny.
The future belongs to those who are there to enjoy it. That won’t be the Norwegians, the Italians, the Dutch, and the non-Muslim French eventually. Unless trends reverse, of course. Or as Derbyshire put it, the Singularity appears.
And Ireland isn’t all that godly anymore. One of the massive shifts in Irish demographics in the last 10 years has been the relative collapse of the Catholic Church there.
I was trying to find information on how the replacement rate would be affected by a decreasing mortality rate. If the mortality rate decreases and the productive period for individuals is increased, the replacement rate should decrease accordingly. We may not be benefiting from a lower mortality rate now due to technology not being advanced enough to extend life and increase productivity. We are living longer but our later years of life are taking far more resources than we are producing through our being able to work longer. That is my gut feeling anyway. Norway may be able to achieve zero population growth with a 1.8 birth rate or even increase if the mortality rate decreases enough. They may be able to prosper if technology can reduce the resources needed to support an older population.
Of course this does not account for external influences such as immigration, war, natural disasters etc.
This looks doable in 20-30 years for less than the cost of a single 300mm wafer fab.
http://maxlifefoundation.typepad.com/maximum-life-foundation/2010/02/david-kekich-how-long-will-it-take-and-how-much-will-it-cost-to-cure-aging.html
Any reason why this won’t work?
No children = no future? True on an absolute level, but a fertility rate of 1.8 still requires a full five generations to halve the population. Given the pace of technological prowess and societal change, I would argue that extrapolating anything out beyond five generations is an exercise in futility. So assuming current trends continue there will be half as many Norwegians in 2120. And… what, exactly? That means they have no future? Hardly. As a population they’re much better off than almost every other group in the world, by just about any index you care to measure; given cultural continuity, they likely still will be.
kurt9, I wouldn’t place any wagers on particular anti-aging technologies; we simply don’t know enough yet. But given the accelerating pace of research, that’s changing fairly quickly. Calorie extension mimic in 30 years? Probably; though it may not give you more than +10%. We could have much better than that, but then again we might not. Does that change the relative population calculations? Absolutely. Again, makes it hard to place any credence in futurology on that timescale.
There is something a little bizarre about worrying about one generation of fertility rates on a planet of over six billion people. Not only does any sense of history caution about project fertility rates much into history, but we are in such a different situation in way that directly impact fertility, capacity etc, that extrapolation from the past is as difficult as has been suggested.
For instance, Iran has had the sharpest decline in fertility recorded. Who would have predicted that as being a result of the Iranian Revolution?
In the developed world, there does seem to be an issue about women’s income prospects and fertility. Given women now control their own fertility with far greater precision than in the past, if there is a lack of casual/part-time work, and strong barriers to moving between motherhood and career, that raises the cost of having children. Unsurprisingly, they then tend to have fewer of them. It is, I suggest, not surprising that countries with labour markets whose regulation (both political and social) are not favourable to women — Spain, Italy, Japan, etc — have particularly low fertility rates. Nothing to do with “loss of belief in the future”.
And if, as in Iran, you have monotheist misogyny enthroned and women control their fertility: you get “womb strike”. Why would an Iranian woman want to bring daughters into the mullah’s world?
@Lorenzo
As goes Iran, so will go the rest of the Muslim Middle-East. I think these people will go through the same demographic transition as Europe (and East Asia).
Lorenzo should be asking, ” Why aren’t Iranian women more like Palestinian women of Gaza — popping them out like suicide bombs?” The answer is obvious if you look far enough back: Prior to the Jimmy Carter approved Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Iranian people and society had liberalised significantly in comparison with other Islamic middle eastern countries.
That is where you need to look to understand why Iranian women have chosen not to emulate their Palestinian sisters in producing muslim militants by the gross.
?” The answer is obvious
the iranian regime engaged in massive pro-natalist propaganda during the iran-iraq war. during the 1990s they turned a 180 and mullahs started promoting contraception because they started freaking out about a wave of unemployed youth.
Birth rates of 1.7 – 1.9 are one thing, but what is to be said or done about the countries with birthrates at around 1.2 – 1.4? Italy has had a tfr of less than 1.5 for nearly twenty years now. Yes, it is true that birthrates go up and down, but does anyone see any reason for the Italian birth rate to go up to 2 in the next twenty years? Such a rise would require a sea change in Italian culture.
I agree. The US is growng a lot because of immirgation. California without all the hispanic immirgation would have stop growing in 2000 since a lot of the white native populatin move out of the state.
Pingback: Solar Power Training – What You Need to Know About Solar Power | Solar Power