Reading through a Times article in the Press on current conditions in Guantanamo Bay, my attention was drawn to a chart listing the nationalities of the remaining inmates (the figures were provided by the Brookings Institute but I can't find them online).
While only six current detainees come from "Axis of Evil"member Iraq, a staggering 38 percent of the remaining 245 inmates come from Yemen - a small, impoverished country that rarely makes it into the news, but happens to have to one of the world's highest fertility rates.
I then checked out the respective fertility rates, for the ten listed nationalities of Guantanamo inmates, at the CIA Factbook (the latest fertility rates are shown in parentheses):
94 Yemeni (6.32)
27 Afghani (5.8)
20 Saudi Arabian (3.83)
17 Chinese (1.79)
10 Algerian (1.79)
10 Tunisian (1.72)
8 Syrian (3.12)
8 Libyan (3.08)
6 Iraqi (3.86)
6 Kuwait (2.76)
With second and third placed Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan also having high fertility rates, it reasonable to conclude there's a pretty strong relationship between terrorist recruitment and a high fertility rate.
Historically, a country with a youthful demographic is more likely to be an aggressive country, and in the Muslim world this aggression tends to take the form of terrorism against rival sects or non-Muslims.
China bucks the trend with a below-replacement fertility rate, but relative to its huge population, it's not a particularly fertile source of terrorist recruits.
Not only do Yemen and Afghanistan have the highest fertility rates outside Sub-Suharan Africa, but they also lack significant oil revenues to help support the rising tide of hungry mouths they need to provide for.
Most Middle Eastern countries, either have successful population control programmes (such as Libya and Iran) or, like Saudi Arabia, have sufficient oil revenues to at least keep most people out of poverty for the next few decades.
If the current U.S. government is serious about winning the war on terror, it might want to look at what he can do to encourage Yemen to follow other Arab states like Libya and Algeria in adopting serious population control measures.
Showing posts with label Demography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Demography. Show all posts
Monday, June 01, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Population density and disease
The Neuropolitics website has an interesting article on the difference between European and Asian people in regard to living space, which has got me thinking about cultural and evolutionary differences and diseases.
Historically, the population densities of Asian civilizations have been much greater than their European counterparts, and this pattern is also found in countries where Asian and Western immigrants live side by side.
While population densities in some European countries like Holland and Denmark rival those found in densely populated Asian states like Vietnam and Japan, most European countries, and countries colonised by Europeans, have relatively low population densities.
On one level the ability of people to live in densely populated areas, can be seen as an evolutionary advancement, since those who live in densely populated areas make better use of land, and tend to use less resources than those who live in lightly-populated areas. Cold, sparsely populated Canada for example has the world's highest per capita level of energy use, and warm, densely populated India one of the lowest.
From an evolutionary perspective the downside of high population densities is disease.
Modern history books tend to be full of stories about western oppression of indigenous people, but it's often forgotten that the main cause of death among indigenous people have been introduced diseases that were largely Asiatic in origin.
Influenza, bubonic plague, smallpox, and cholera for example, first came to Europe via trade with more densely populated Asian cultures, and were then passed on to indigenous people in America and Australasia during colonisation.
Cholera, which originated in India, is still continuing to spread around the world, with Peru being hit for the first time in the early 1990s.
Some historians now think that smallpox actually arrived in Australia before Europeans through Aboriginal contact with Indonesian traders.
Although most diseases of Asian origin were caused by close contact with domesticated animals, it seems population density must also have played a significant part since, although Europeans and Africans also lived in close proximity to livestock, few diseases have spread in the opposite direction - from Europe and Africa to Asia.
The native Indian population of the Americas are an interesting case because while they are of Asian origin, they had little or no resistance to modern Asian-derived diseases bought in by Western immigrants. Before European contact, the population densities of most Indian settlements were also relatively low, reflecting a predominantly hunter-gatherer way of life, although a few densely-populated civilisations did emerge in areas like Southern Mexico. In the Americas there were also fewer domesticated animals to pass on diseases.
When Eurasian diseases arrived in the 16th Century, the Native Americans living in the most densely populated areas, such as the Mississipi Valley and Cuba, also suffered the highest mortality rates.
In the modern era population densities in some Latin American cities are now rivaling those found in Asia, and Eurasian livestock is now widely dispersed throughout the Americas. Not surprising, Latin America is now changing from somewhere that suffers from introduced diseases, to a potential source of infectious diseases that may threaten other parts of the globe.
With increasing population densities, the same pattern in also emerging in Africa, with AIDS being one of the first instances of an African-sourced disease going on to kill significant numbers of people in other parts of the world.
Historically, the population densities of Asian civilizations have been much greater than their European counterparts, and this pattern is also found in countries where Asian and Western immigrants live side by side.
While population densities in some European countries like Holland and Denmark rival those found in densely populated Asian states like Vietnam and Japan, most European countries, and countries colonised by Europeans, have relatively low population densities.
On one level the ability of people to live in densely populated areas, can be seen as an evolutionary advancement, since those who live in densely populated areas make better use of land, and tend to use less resources than those who live in lightly-populated areas. Cold, sparsely populated Canada for example has the world's highest per capita level of energy use, and warm, densely populated India one of the lowest.
From an evolutionary perspective the downside of high population densities is disease.
Modern history books tend to be full of stories about western oppression of indigenous people, but it's often forgotten that the main cause of death among indigenous people have been introduced diseases that were largely Asiatic in origin.
Influenza, bubonic plague, smallpox, and cholera for example, first came to Europe via trade with more densely populated Asian cultures, and were then passed on to indigenous people in America and Australasia during colonisation.
Cholera, which originated in India, is still continuing to spread around the world, with Peru being hit for the first time in the early 1990s.
Some historians now think that smallpox actually arrived in Australia before Europeans through Aboriginal contact with Indonesian traders.
Although most diseases of Asian origin were caused by close contact with domesticated animals, it seems population density must also have played a significant part since, although Europeans and Africans also lived in close proximity to livestock, few diseases have spread in the opposite direction - from Europe and Africa to Asia.
The native Indian population of the Americas are an interesting case because while they are of Asian origin, they had little or no resistance to modern Asian-derived diseases bought in by Western immigrants. Before European contact, the population densities of most Indian settlements were also relatively low, reflecting a predominantly hunter-gatherer way of life, although a few densely-populated civilisations did emerge in areas like Southern Mexico. In the Americas there were also fewer domesticated animals to pass on diseases.
When Eurasian diseases arrived in the 16th Century, the Native Americans living in the most densely populated areas, such as the Mississipi Valley and Cuba, also suffered the highest mortality rates.
In the modern era population densities in some Latin American cities are now rivaling those found in Asia, and Eurasian livestock is now widely dispersed throughout the Americas. Not surprising, Latin America is now changing from somewhere that suffers from introduced diseases, to a potential source of infectious diseases that may threaten other parts of the globe.
With increasing population densities, the same pattern in also emerging in Africa, with AIDS being one of the first instances of an African-sourced disease going on to kill significant numbers of people in other parts of the world.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Fertility rates up, but whites still lagging
According to a recent article in the Press, New Zealand has had a "baby blip" in the last few years, with 64, 340 babies born last year. This is 10 per cent higher than the average for the previous decade of 58, 380 and has raised the annual fertility rate to just under 2.2 births per woman.
However, there's a fair amount of ethnic variation in fertility rates. The article doesn't list the latest percentages for fertility rates per ethnicity, but here's the ethnic breakdown in registered births for last year. I've added the approximate population share of the respective ethnic groups in brackets:
44, 530 European New Zealand ( 73 percent)
18, 840 Maori (14 percent)
10, 120 Pacific Islander ( 5.0 percent)
7260 Asian (5.5 percent)
Without the latest population figures for the different ethnic groups I can't properly work out fertility rates by ethnicity but , It's pretty clear from the number of births that Maori and Pacific Island women are continuing to have more children that women of European and Asian origin.
The most recent figures for ethnic differences in fertility rates I could find at the Statistic New Zealand site were for the 2006 census, and indicate a slight overall increase from 2001:
2006 Fertility rates:
1.92 NZ European
2.78 Maori
2.95 Pacific Island
1.52 Asian
All groups: 2.18
2001 Fertility rates:
1.77 NZ European
2.59 Maori
2.94 Pacific Island.
1.67 Asian
All groups: 2.05
Fertility rates for European New Zealanders are increasing, but they still seem to be below the replacement level of 2.1 percent, while Asian fertility rates are still below the replacement rate.
The ethnic differences in fertility rates are highlighted by the differences in fertility rates by region. Among areas with a high Maori population, Northland had a fertility rate of 2.67, and Gisborne 2.68. By contrast, whitebread Canterbury and Otago had fertility rates of 1.88 and 1.59 respectively.
When it comes to reproduction rates, Maori and Pacific Islanders don't seem to be put off much by high living costs. Housing costs in Northland for example, are generally higher than in Otago, but that doesn't stop Northlanders from having more significantly more children. Otago's particularly low rate fertility, even by white standards, is probably connected to economic decline in Dunedin and the chronic housing shortage in Queenstown.
Despite having a high Pacific Island population, Wellington has the country's second lowest fertility rate at 1.81, but this low rate could also be due to its high percentage of single White and Asian professionals.
Interestingly, the only high fertility areas with a low Maori population are Southland (2.18) and Tasman (2.16) - both areas with relatively cheap housing (Southland has the cheapest housing in the country) and low unemployment.
Relative to Maori and Pacific Islanders, Whites and Asians seem to be more sensitive to economic conditions when it comes to having children. If housing is expensive or unemployment is high, then they will either put off having children or move to a cheaper area with reasonably low unemployment and have kids there.
However, there's a fair amount of ethnic variation in fertility rates. The article doesn't list the latest percentages for fertility rates per ethnicity, but here's the ethnic breakdown in registered births for last year. I've added the approximate population share of the respective ethnic groups in brackets:
44, 530 European New Zealand ( 73 percent)
18, 840 Maori (14 percent)
10, 120 Pacific Islander ( 5.0 percent)
7260 Asian (5.5 percent)
Without the latest population figures for the different ethnic groups I can't properly work out fertility rates by ethnicity but , It's pretty clear from the number of births that Maori and Pacific Island women are continuing to have more children that women of European and Asian origin.
The most recent figures for ethnic differences in fertility rates I could find at the Statistic New Zealand site were for the 2006 census, and indicate a slight overall increase from 2001:
2006 Fertility rates:
1.92 NZ European
2.78 Maori
2.95 Pacific Island
1.52 Asian
All groups: 2.18
2001 Fertility rates:
1.77 NZ European
2.59 Maori
2.94 Pacific Island.
1.67 Asian
All groups: 2.05
Fertility rates for European New Zealanders are increasing, but they still seem to be below the replacement level of 2.1 percent, while Asian fertility rates are still below the replacement rate.
The ethnic differences in fertility rates are highlighted by the differences in fertility rates by region. Among areas with a high Maori population, Northland had a fertility rate of 2.67, and Gisborne 2.68. By contrast, whitebread Canterbury and Otago had fertility rates of 1.88 and 1.59 respectively.
When it comes to reproduction rates, Maori and Pacific Islanders don't seem to be put off much by high living costs. Housing costs in Northland for example, are generally higher than in Otago, but that doesn't stop Northlanders from having more significantly more children. Otago's particularly low rate fertility, even by white standards, is probably connected to economic decline in Dunedin and the chronic housing shortage in Queenstown.
Despite having a high Pacific Island population, Wellington has the country's second lowest fertility rate at 1.81, but this low rate could also be due to its high percentage of single White and Asian professionals.
Interestingly, the only high fertility areas with a low Maori population are Southland (2.18) and Tasman (2.16) - both areas with relatively cheap housing (Southland has the cheapest housing in the country) and low unemployment.
Relative to Maori and Pacific Islanders, Whites and Asians seem to be more sensitive to economic conditions when it comes to having children. If housing is expensive or unemployment is high, then they will either put off having children or move to a cheaper area with reasonably low unemployment and have kids there.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A nationalist approach to demographic imbalances
With a change of leadership in the White House, population control advocates are in the news again with calls for more population control programmes in the burgeoning third world.
Overpopulation seems to be one of those orphan issues which both liberals and religious conservatives prefer to ignore, but which stubbornly refuses to go away.
It may be easy to dismiss overpopulation as dire sensationalism if you live in lightly-populated Western Australia or Wyoming, but it's harder to ignore if you're working in the Italian coastguard having to collect dead African refugees floating about the Mediterranean.
One of the big reasons why overpopulation isn't taken seriously is that most population control advocates are culturally naive environmentalists who see the overpopulation issue as a global problem requiring global solutions. And as the example of global warming demonstrates, once something is labeled a "global problem" it becomes a unsolvable abstraction that nobody's willing to deal with.
Overpopulation may have been a global problem in the past, but it's now largely a national that's much worse in some countries than others.
For example, in Somalia and Niger, fertility rates are about 7 births per woman, while in Italy and Eastern Europe fertility rates are around 1.3 births per woman - well below the replacement rate of 2.1.
Population control advocates who go around telling everyone to have fewer children won't win much support from conservatives who see no reason why western countries which are struggling to pay the welfare and medical costs of an aging population should also have to pay for the overpopulation problems of the developing world.
Nevertheless, the world's burgeoning population has already had a big impact on the environment, and is causing massive social and economic disruption in both rich and poor countries alike.
How then to draw attention to this pressing issue without alienating potential support?
Well perhaps instead of talking of global overpopulation, population control advocates should define the problem as one of population imbalance, which would highlights the fact that some countries have too many children and some countries too few.
This would certainly be more palatable to conservatives and nationalists, but it would draw a lot of criticism from the globalist left.
If the overpopulation issue is defined as a problem of population imbalance between countries, then it would become clear that countries, rather than NGOs, should be taking more responsibility for dealing with it, and for the globalist organisations charged with distributing aid to the third world, such an idea is anathema.
Even most conservatives who oppose expanding welfare in first world countries, run for cover at the idea of telling third world countries that development aid should be tied to population control measures.
Eventually though, unconditional aid to the third world will become just too expensive for the West and what aid it does provide will have to be conditioned on preferential trade agreements or other conditions which are beneficial to the donor.
Already China is leading the way in this regard, with an infrastructure for resources policy that it's pursuing in parts of African, The South Pacific and Latin America.
However, for the populations of third world countries that continue to grow at a rapid rate, the changing situation in the West will put them in a very precarious position. Instead of being able to pacify their growing populations with western aid money, developing countries with growing populations will suddenly be forced to live off their own rapidly shrinking resource bases.
Hence, from this perspective, the sooner the West starts making government aid to poor countries conditional on reduced population growth the better.
Private aid agencies are of course free to pursue their own approaches, but hard-pressed western taxpayers shouldn't have put up with money being wasted on short-sighted band-aid policies that amount to fighting the fire by feeding the flames.
This should also apply to the Palestinians, whose unreasonably high birthrates only aggravate the already volatile situation in the West Bank and Gaza strip.
Palestinians may believe having as many children as possible is a good strategy for national survival, but I don't see why the West should have to pay for it.
Overpopulation seems to be one of those orphan issues which both liberals and religious conservatives prefer to ignore, but which stubbornly refuses to go away.
It may be easy to dismiss overpopulation as dire sensationalism if you live in lightly-populated Western Australia or Wyoming, but it's harder to ignore if you're working in the Italian coastguard having to collect dead African refugees floating about the Mediterranean.
One of the big reasons why overpopulation isn't taken seriously is that most population control advocates are culturally naive environmentalists who see the overpopulation issue as a global problem requiring global solutions. And as the example of global warming demonstrates, once something is labeled a "global problem" it becomes a unsolvable abstraction that nobody's willing to deal with.
Overpopulation may have been a global problem in the past, but it's now largely a national that's much worse in some countries than others.
For example, in Somalia and Niger, fertility rates are about 7 births per woman, while in Italy and Eastern Europe fertility rates are around 1.3 births per woman - well below the replacement rate of 2.1.
Population control advocates who go around telling everyone to have fewer children won't win much support from conservatives who see no reason why western countries which are struggling to pay the welfare and medical costs of an aging population should also have to pay for the overpopulation problems of the developing world.
Nevertheless, the world's burgeoning population has already had a big impact on the environment, and is causing massive social and economic disruption in both rich and poor countries alike.
How then to draw attention to this pressing issue without alienating potential support?
Well perhaps instead of talking of global overpopulation, population control advocates should define the problem as one of population imbalance, which would highlights the fact that some countries have too many children and some countries too few.
This would certainly be more palatable to conservatives and nationalists, but it would draw a lot of criticism from the globalist left.
If the overpopulation issue is defined as a problem of population imbalance between countries, then it would become clear that countries, rather than NGOs, should be taking more responsibility for dealing with it, and for the globalist organisations charged with distributing aid to the third world, such an idea is anathema.
Even most conservatives who oppose expanding welfare in first world countries, run for cover at the idea of telling third world countries that development aid should be tied to population control measures.
Eventually though, unconditional aid to the third world will become just too expensive for the West and what aid it does provide will have to be conditioned on preferential trade agreements or other conditions which are beneficial to the donor.
Already China is leading the way in this regard, with an infrastructure for resources policy that it's pursuing in parts of African, The South Pacific and Latin America.
However, for the populations of third world countries that continue to grow at a rapid rate, the changing situation in the West will put them in a very precarious position. Instead of being able to pacify their growing populations with western aid money, developing countries with growing populations will suddenly be forced to live off their own rapidly shrinking resource bases.
Hence, from this perspective, the sooner the West starts making government aid to poor countries conditional on reduced population growth the better.
Private aid agencies are of course free to pursue their own approaches, but hard-pressed western taxpayers shouldn't have put up with money being wasted on short-sighted band-aid policies that amount to fighting the fire by feeding the flames.
This should also apply to the Palestinians, whose unreasonably high birthrates only aggravate the already volatile situation in the West Bank and Gaza strip.
Palestinians may believe having as many children as possible is a good strategy for national survival, but I don't see why the West should have to pay for it.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Lack of realism from the Greens
Recently I came across this post on NZ Green Party policy, which comes some way towards explaining why the party isn't opposed to relatively high immigration levels.
Apparently the Ministry of Environment has estimated the human carrying capacity of New Zealand to be around 5.5 million, that's the point after which the environment will be unable to sustainably accommodate increased population growth. Subsequently, the Green Party believes it's OK to continue to expand the population (currently at just over 4 million) to just under the 5.5 million mark.
One problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't take into account how the country is supposed to provide a high standard of living for this larger population.
At present New Zealand relies heavily on primary exports such as meat, timber, aluminium, wine and diary products, which require large amounts of land, water and electricity to produce.
However, if the population continues to expand, more arable land, water and electricity will be needed to cater for the larger population and less resources will be available for producing these income generating exports.
Also with traditionally strong industrial economies like Germany and Japan unable to compete in manufacturing with China, and with the service sector now struggling to compete with India, it may be wishful thinking to assume NZ can compensate for a shrinking resource base by developing alternative industries.
A safer, more sustainable approach would be to limit immigration and cash in on the rising demand for food and industrial materials generated by Asian industrialisation. The Green's may believe in protecting local manufacturing in principle but they certainly aren't realistic producerists.
Mind you, I probably shouldn't overstate the influence of carrying capacity arguments in Green thinking in general.
They certainly don't explain the pro-immigration policy of the Australian Green Party, which continues to ignore calls for immigration restrictionism even though Australia is already approaching the upper estimate for its carrying capacity (estimated at 17-23 million).
So it's likely that old-fashioned socialism still plays a powerful part in Green ideology.
Apparently the Ministry of Environment has estimated the human carrying capacity of New Zealand to be around 5.5 million, that's the point after which the environment will be unable to sustainably accommodate increased population growth. Subsequently, the Green Party believes it's OK to continue to expand the population (currently at just over 4 million) to just under the 5.5 million mark.
One problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't take into account how the country is supposed to provide a high standard of living for this larger population.
At present New Zealand relies heavily on primary exports such as meat, timber, aluminium, wine and diary products, which require large amounts of land, water and electricity to produce.
However, if the population continues to expand, more arable land, water and electricity will be needed to cater for the larger population and less resources will be available for producing these income generating exports.
Also with traditionally strong industrial economies like Germany and Japan unable to compete in manufacturing with China, and with the service sector now struggling to compete with India, it may be wishful thinking to assume NZ can compensate for a shrinking resource base by developing alternative industries.
A safer, more sustainable approach would be to limit immigration and cash in on the rising demand for food and industrial materials generated by Asian industrialisation. The Green's may believe in protecting local manufacturing in principle but they certainly aren't realistic producerists.
Mind you, I probably shouldn't overstate the influence of carrying capacity arguments in Green thinking in general.
They certainly don't explain the pro-immigration policy of the Australian Green Party, which continues to ignore calls for immigration restrictionism even though Australia is already approaching the upper estimate for its carrying capacity (estimated at 17-23 million).
So it's likely that old-fashioned socialism still plays a powerful part in Green ideology.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
A few thoughts on overpopulation and increasing food prices
With cries of food shortages now being heard in many third world countries, the West is likely to be expected to once again step in with food aid to ameliorate the crisis. But this could well result in making the situation worse.
While the recent surge in commodity prices may spell trouble for the millions of third world poor living in overcrowded cities, it's actually good news for many third world farmers, who form the backbone of the economy in most developing countries. Subsequently, if the West responds by aiding third world countries with food aid, as it has done in the past, it may well drive down the price of locally produced grain and impoverish local farmers.
This is why population control is so essential in many developing countries. Most poor countries have a large non-production population which serves as both a break on development, and a major headache for cash-strapped third world governments trying to establish basic infrastructure.
In the past, nature had a rather brutal, but effective means of getting rid of surplus humans and making room for new development - famine. In a particularly dramatic example, a recent international genetics project claims modern humans almost became extinct 70,000 years ago ("When humans came closest to extinction," The Press, Saturday, April 26).
According to the Genographic Project, the human population crashed from around 10,000 - 100,000 people to just 2000, following ice age related climate change which made Africa cooler and drier. However, the Project's director, Spencer Wells, says this population crisis ultimately became a major stimulus for human development:
"A shift in culture began. People began making better hunting tools they needed to survive the drought. Art makes its appearance. There is abstract thought."
Another such stimulus, occurred in Europe during the 14th Century, following massive depopulation caused by the Black Death. With a sudden and profound labour shortage, workers wages increased, feudalism began to breakdown and the development and uptake of labour saving technology, such as horse-drawn ploughs and water mills began in earnest. This labour-shortage-fueled technology stimulus went on to became a major factor in the technological supremacy of Europe and its colonies from 1500 through to the present day.
It's seems that population control plays a vital role in human development, but how then can human numbers be controlled without massive human suffering?
Many liberals argue that people will naturally have fewer children as they become more educated and affluent. But that is putting the cart before the horse. People can't become more affluent if they are too numerous to be able to command increasing wages for their labour, or authorities are unwilling or unable to educate them.
The most humane option, and one which is in the best interests of rich and poor countries, seems to be managed population control through such measures as family planning, contraceptives, and economic incentives. Hopefully the end of the Bush presidency this year will signal a resurgence of interest in funding for population control programmes.
While the recent surge in commodity prices may spell trouble for the millions of third world poor living in overcrowded cities, it's actually good news for many third world farmers, who form the backbone of the economy in most developing countries. Subsequently, if the West responds by aiding third world countries with food aid, as it has done in the past, it may well drive down the price of locally produced grain and impoverish local farmers.
This is why population control is so essential in many developing countries. Most poor countries have a large non-production population which serves as both a break on development, and a major headache for cash-strapped third world governments trying to establish basic infrastructure.
In the past, nature had a rather brutal, but effective means of getting rid of surplus humans and making room for new development - famine. In a particularly dramatic example, a recent international genetics project claims modern humans almost became extinct 70,000 years ago ("When humans came closest to extinction," The Press, Saturday, April 26).
According to the Genographic Project, the human population crashed from around 10,000 - 100,000 people to just 2000, following ice age related climate change which made Africa cooler and drier. However, the Project's director, Spencer Wells, says this population crisis ultimately became a major stimulus for human development:
"A shift in culture began. People began making better hunting tools they needed to survive the drought. Art makes its appearance. There is abstract thought."
Another such stimulus, occurred in Europe during the 14th Century, following massive depopulation caused by the Black Death. With a sudden and profound labour shortage, workers wages increased, feudalism began to breakdown and the development and uptake of labour saving technology, such as horse-drawn ploughs and water mills began in earnest. This labour-shortage-fueled technology stimulus went on to became a major factor in the technological supremacy of Europe and its colonies from 1500 through to the present day.
It's seems that population control plays a vital role in human development, but how then can human numbers be controlled without massive human suffering?
Many liberals argue that people will naturally have fewer children as they become more educated and affluent. But that is putting the cart before the horse. People can't become more affluent if they are too numerous to be able to command increasing wages for their labour, or authorities are unwilling or unable to educate them.
The most humane option, and one which is in the best interests of rich and poor countries, seems to be managed population control through such measures as family planning, contraceptives, and economic incentives. Hopefully the end of the Bush presidency this year will signal a resurgence of interest in funding for population control programmes.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Counting the cost of population growth
With global food prices on the rise, we have yet another reminder to reconsider whether immigration-fueled population growth is really a good idea.
In an article on the News with Views website, American talk radio pundit Frosty Woolridge points out some of the numerous negative effects of large scale legal and illegal immigration into the United States:
"What does growth really bring to you and me? Yes, it creates a few ‘rich’ people. However, Bartlett said, “It brings more homeless, more unemployed, more people living in poverty, more traffic congestion, higher parking fees, more school crowding, more unhappy neighborhoods, more expensive government, more and higher taxes, more fiscal problems for the state, more air and water pollution, higher utility costs, diminished democracy, crowded highways, growing costs of infrastructure maintenance, higher food costs and more destruction of the environment.”
You will encounter a few more: overloaded campgrounds, beaches, ski resorts, more litter, higher gas costs, greater housing costs, water shortages and loss of choices and personal freedom. "
In my view this list constitutes a pretty powerful argument in favour of immigration restrictionism. Just about all of these trends can be applied to most other western countries including New Zealand.
About the only negative impact which doesn't really apply to New Zealand is immigration-based unemployment. Fortunately, this country, unlike the US, doesn't have a high level of unskilled immigration at present, so we don't have quite the same problem with immigrants taking jobs away from unskilled native workers. Hence the unemployment rate is only about 3-4 percent, which is one of the lowest in the OECD.
Other than actually bite the bullet and reduce immigration, there is little governments can do to shield citizens from the impact of expansive immigration. For example, the Labour government has attempted to reduce poverty by reintroducing family benefits, but any benefits from increased government spending has largely been canceled out by the increasing cost of housing, food and utilities.
In an article on the News with Views website, American talk radio pundit Frosty Woolridge points out some of the numerous negative effects of large scale legal and illegal immigration into the United States:
"What does growth really bring to you and me? Yes, it creates a few ‘rich’ people. However, Bartlett said, “It brings more homeless, more unemployed, more people living in poverty, more traffic congestion, higher parking fees, more school crowding, more unhappy neighborhoods, more expensive government, more and higher taxes, more fiscal problems for the state, more air and water pollution, higher utility costs, diminished democracy, crowded highways, growing costs of infrastructure maintenance, higher food costs and more destruction of the environment.”
You will encounter a few more: overloaded campgrounds, beaches, ski resorts, more litter, higher gas costs, greater housing costs, water shortages and loss of choices and personal freedom. "
In my view this list constitutes a pretty powerful argument in favour of immigration restrictionism. Just about all of these trends can be applied to most other western countries including New Zealand.
About the only negative impact which doesn't really apply to New Zealand is immigration-based unemployment. Fortunately, this country, unlike the US, doesn't have a high level of unskilled immigration at present, so we don't have quite the same problem with immigrants taking jobs away from unskilled native workers. Hence the unemployment rate is only about 3-4 percent, which is one of the lowest in the OECD.
Other than actually bite the bullet and reduce immigration, there is little governments can do to shield citizens from the impact of expansive immigration. For example, the Labour government has attempted to reduce poverty by reintroducing family benefits, but any benefits from increased government spending has largely been canceled out by the increasing cost of housing, food and utilities.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Ducking demographic problems
Amid the recent criticisms of New Zealand First for questioning Asian immigration, liberal political pundits have overlooked the fact that Statistics New Zealand is predicting the population of NZ will grow to over five and half million by 2026 (that's about what you get if you add up their predictions for the country's major ethnic groups).
Such a population increase will mean that the country will have to take a whole new approach to power supply and infrastructure development.
New Zealand, with just over million citizens is one of the few countries in the world that obtains almost all its electricity needs from hydroelectric power stations. This has been a cornerstone in the country's "clean green" anti-nuclear image that's been promoted by the Labour Party.
However, the nation is now at a crossroads. Nearly all the best sites for hydroelectric power generation have already been developed and if the population increases by the amount predicted by Statistics NZ, then Nuclear or Coal power will become essential. Wind power, while a useful supplement to other forms of energy, just doesn't produce enough power on a consistent basis to provide for a population increase of this magnitude.
Similarly, big investments will have to be have to made in the countries transport infrastructure. The many roads and bridges built between the 1930s and 1960s, are now beginning to deteriorate under increased traffic, and further population growth will mean that many will have to be either rebuilt completely or expanded to accommodate greater traffic volumes.
At present, there are no motorways linking any of the country's main cities, and if the population increases by over a million it will become essential to put in dual carriageways on the busiest routes, such as the infamous road between Auckland and Hamilton. This will consume a huge amount of public spending and put an end the Greens' hopes of running down the roading budget and putting more money into public transport.
It's fast getting to stage where the country's so called environmentalists (which now apparently includes the National Party) will have to decide whether they should continue to follow a liberal approach, in favour of expansive immigration and a utopian faith in alternative energy and public transport, or a hard-headed conservative approach, which puts limits on immigration as well as economic excesses.
Such a population increase will mean that the country will have to take a whole new approach to power supply and infrastructure development.
New Zealand, with just over million citizens is one of the few countries in the world that obtains almost all its electricity needs from hydroelectric power stations. This has been a cornerstone in the country's "clean green" anti-nuclear image that's been promoted by the Labour Party.
However, the nation is now at a crossroads. Nearly all the best sites for hydroelectric power generation have already been developed and if the population increases by the amount predicted by Statistics NZ, then Nuclear or Coal power will become essential. Wind power, while a useful supplement to other forms of energy, just doesn't produce enough power on a consistent basis to provide for a population increase of this magnitude.
Similarly, big investments will have to be have to made in the countries transport infrastructure. The many roads and bridges built between the 1930s and 1960s, are now beginning to deteriorate under increased traffic, and further population growth will mean that many will have to be either rebuilt completely or expanded to accommodate greater traffic volumes.
At present, there are no motorways linking any of the country's main cities, and if the population increases by over a million it will become essential to put in dual carriageways on the busiest routes, such as the infamous road between Auckland and Hamilton. This will consume a huge amount of public spending and put an end the Greens' hopes of running down the roading budget and putting more money into public transport.
It's fast getting to stage where the country's so called environmentalists (which now apparently includes the National Party) will have to decide whether they should continue to follow a liberal approach, in favour of expansive immigration and a utopian faith in alternative energy and public transport, or a hard-headed conservative approach, which puts limits on immigration as well as economic excesses.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
A producerist approach to labour shortages
If global warming is the great bogeyman of left-liberals, then the conservative equivalent seems to be slowing birth rates and population decline. If discussion on many mainstream conservative blogs is anything to go, the West is close to collapse due to its low birth rates and must let in increasing numbers of non-western immigrants in the interests of economic survival.
Sure declining birth rates are a major concern but you don't come across quite the same level of panic on ethno-nationalist sites, since ethno-nationalists don't tend to support free market capitalism with its market populist system of labour allocations.
For communitarians and nationalists, the market is a tool to serve the people, not an end in itself. If low birth rates really are imperiling western civilisation, then we need to consider intervening in the free market to ensure that scarcer labour supplies are directed away from non-essential service-industry activities, and towards areas which are essential to long-term economic sustainability.
Many people certainly have short memories, less than 15 years ago, the English-speaking West was grapling with high unemployment caused by massive de-industrialisation. The main concern back then was figuring out what over qualified university graduates and ex-industrial workers were going to do, and many ended up in low-wage service industry jobs or dubious post-modern occupations like counseling and public relations.
Today, we know longer have to worry about creating occupations and in theory can focus on directly labour to where it is most needed. However, in the meantime most conservatives and right liberals seem to have forgotten that we have large numbers of workers engaged in low productivity service jobs and that we are continuing to train more workers for such occupations.
Here in New Zealand for example, we have an excessively large retail sector for the size of our economy, and it would be advantageous if the government encouraged more workers into other sectors by restricting applications for new mega stores and shopping malls.
There are also some sectors of the service economy with negative social pathologies which we can consider shutting down altogether or at least severely restricting. If we have a serious labour shortage then prostitution should be made illegal, and gambling should be tightly restricted.
There is also a good case for restricting planning applications for fast food restaurants which encourage obesity and ill-health, as well as diverting labour from other, more productive fields like manufacturing and horticulture.
The liberal right will argue that the government shouldn't interfere in the economy to direct workers into particular industries, however we already do this anyway through selective funding of public education and there's nothing particularly radical about trying to manipulate the labour supply in the interests of economic sustainablity. Indeed, most East Asian countries already follow a relatively producerist approach to training and education, with little public funding for service industry based training.
Through the tertiary education system the government has considerable power to affect the future labour supply and there is plenty of fat to trim: entry can be restricted to sports, recreation, liberal arts and generic business courses while incentives to encourage students to take practical and technical courses which address key labour shortages can be further increased.
The relative success of Labour's Modern Apprenticeships initative show's how quickly things can be improved where there is political will and proper liaison with the private sector. One of the strengths of using a corporatist/producerist approach to help deal with labour shortages is that it can have a significant impact in a short space of time.
While it will take 30 years for a baby-boom to have any impact on the labour supply, an aggressive program to direct labour towards essential services and export industries could bear serious fruit in 5-10 years.
Sure declining birth rates are a major concern but you don't come across quite the same level of panic on ethno-nationalist sites, since ethno-nationalists don't tend to support free market capitalism with its market populist system of labour allocations.
For communitarians and nationalists, the market is a tool to serve the people, not an end in itself. If low birth rates really are imperiling western civilisation, then we need to consider intervening in the free market to ensure that scarcer labour supplies are directed away from non-essential service-industry activities, and towards areas which are essential to long-term economic sustainability.
Many people certainly have short memories, less than 15 years ago, the English-speaking West was grapling with high unemployment caused by massive de-industrialisation. The main concern back then was figuring out what over qualified university graduates and ex-industrial workers were going to do, and many ended up in low-wage service industry jobs or dubious post-modern occupations like counseling and public relations.
Today, we know longer have to worry about creating occupations and in theory can focus on directly labour to where it is most needed. However, in the meantime most conservatives and right liberals seem to have forgotten that we have large numbers of workers engaged in low productivity service jobs and that we are continuing to train more workers for such occupations.
Here in New Zealand for example, we have an excessively large retail sector for the size of our economy, and it would be advantageous if the government encouraged more workers into other sectors by restricting applications for new mega stores and shopping malls.
There are also some sectors of the service economy with negative social pathologies which we can consider shutting down altogether or at least severely restricting. If we have a serious labour shortage then prostitution should be made illegal, and gambling should be tightly restricted.
There is also a good case for restricting planning applications for fast food restaurants which encourage obesity and ill-health, as well as diverting labour from other, more productive fields like manufacturing and horticulture.
The liberal right will argue that the government shouldn't interfere in the economy to direct workers into particular industries, however we already do this anyway through selective funding of public education and there's nothing particularly radical about trying to manipulate the labour supply in the interests of economic sustainablity. Indeed, most East Asian countries already follow a relatively producerist approach to training and education, with little public funding for service industry based training.
Through the tertiary education system the government has considerable power to affect the future labour supply and there is plenty of fat to trim: entry can be restricted to sports, recreation, liberal arts and generic business courses while incentives to encourage students to take practical and technical courses which address key labour shortages can be further increased.
The relative success of Labour's Modern Apprenticeships initative show's how quickly things can be improved where there is political will and proper liaison with the private sector. One of the strengths of using a corporatist/producerist approach to help deal with labour shortages is that it can have a significant impact in a short space of time.
While it will take 30 years for a baby-boom to have any impact on the labour supply, an aggressive program to direct labour towards essential services and export industries could bear serious fruit in 5-10 years.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Diffusing New Zealand’s looming race bomb.
In a feature article in last month’s Press (“steady as she goes,” September 15, D3, not online) Helen Clarke is quoted as saying National have “policies which dare not speak their name.”
Clarke does not elaborate on what sort of policies she is referring to, but her cryptic comment suggests these “policies” include National’s approach to race issues.
In 2004 National leader Don Brash tried to start a serious debate on current race relations between Maori and European New Zealanders when he argued in his Orewa speech that it was unsustainable for European and Asian New Zealanders to continue to subsidise a growing Maori population.
However, following National’s loss in the 2005 election, and the replacement of Brash with the Cameronesque PR man John Key, race was quickly swept back under the carpet.
Although Brash deserves some recognition for mentioning a difficult and important issue, the right liberal policies he prescribes are probably a maladaptive solution to the problem.
The main issue with race in New Zealand is arguably not poor race relations or race-based policies, as Brash claims, but a pervasive inability to acknowledge demographic imbalances.As the current ethic strife countries such as Lebanon, Israel, South Africa and France illustrate, different rates of demographic growth between races and cultures often lead to serious conflict.
Over the last hundred years, the Maori population has been growing at a faster rate than the European population, yet has been consuming a disproportionate percentage of taxes.
Despite, efforts to address historical grievances over land confiscations and the marginalisation of Maori culture, Maori still lag behind in terms of income, health outcomes, unemployment rates and education levels, as well having higher imprisonment rates. Added to this is the fact that the country’s growing Polynesian population also consumes a disproportionate share of health and welfare spending.
The response of both Labour and National over the past 17 years has been to increase immigration of educated workers from Europe, India and East Asia to expand the overburdened tax base.
Unfortunately, increased immigration has been a double-sword. Higher housing costs have meant fewer Maori and Polynesians have been able to afford to homes, thus increasing their dependency of welfare, and more European New Zealanders have left overseas, in part, because wage rates have failed to keep up with the increased cost of housing and education.
While Australia, Canada, and the United States also have problems with economically under-performing indigenous populations, their indigenous peoples form a much smaller percentage of their populations, so they are less of an economic burden.
With an aging white population increasingly dependent on the state for health and pension spending, there is likely to be increasing pressure on the government to reduce spending on low-income families at a time when Maori politicians are making increasing demands on the government to increase such spending and reduce immigration.
This situation puts the limited immigration supporting New Zealand First Party in a difficult position. Although rising commodity prices are making immigration restrictionism more economically justifiable, the country’s multi-cultural divisions appear to be acting as a significant break on productivity.
Money that previously went into long-term infrastructure development and research and development programmes is now going into such things as increased spending on law and order to manage an increasingly diverse population which is unable to manage itself.
At the global level, the majority of countries with high productivity rates, such as Korea and Japan, tend to be either culturally homogenous or, like the United States, are large enough to compete on economies on scale - New Zealand can’t compete under either criteria.
In the long run, the only solution out of this bind may be political union with Australia. In a combined Australian/New Zealand state, the Maori population would be less of a demographic threat to a European population of over 20 million, while New Zealand would not need to worry so much about skilled workers moving across the Tasman. Similarly, there would be less of an economic argument in favour of increasing immigration in order to expand the tax base.
Sadly though, it’s unlikely there is going to be any serious debate about this issue until the baby boomer generation starts retiring in about 5 years - by which time the government will be in a more fiscally desperate situation.
Clarke does not elaborate on what sort of policies she is referring to, but her cryptic comment suggests these “policies” include National’s approach to race issues.
In 2004 National leader Don Brash tried to start a serious debate on current race relations between Maori and European New Zealanders when he argued in his Orewa speech that it was unsustainable for European and Asian New Zealanders to continue to subsidise a growing Maori population.
However, following National’s loss in the 2005 election, and the replacement of Brash with the Cameronesque PR man John Key, race was quickly swept back under the carpet.
Although Brash deserves some recognition for mentioning a difficult and important issue, the right liberal policies he prescribes are probably a maladaptive solution to the problem.
The main issue with race in New Zealand is arguably not poor race relations or race-based policies, as Brash claims, but a pervasive inability to acknowledge demographic imbalances.As the current ethic strife countries such as Lebanon, Israel, South Africa and France illustrate, different rates of demographic growth between races and cultures often lead to serious conflict.
Over the last hundred years, the Maori population has been growing at a faster rate than the European population, yet has been consuming a disproportionate percentage of taxes.
Despite, efforts to address historical grievances over land confiscations and the marginalisation of Maori culture, Maori still lag behind in terms of income, health outcomes, unemployment rates and education levels, as well having higher imprisonment rates. Added to this is the fact that the country’s growing Polynesian population also consumes a disproportionate share of health and welfare spending.
The response of both Labour and National over the past 17 years has been to increase immigration of educated workers from Europe, India and East Asia to expand the overburdened tax base.
Unfortunately, increased immigration has been a double-sword. Higher housing costs have meant fewer Maori and Polynesians have been able to afford to homes, thus increasing their dependency of welfare, and more European New Zealanders have left overseas, in part, because wage rates have failed to keep up with the increased cost of housing and education.
While Australia, Canada, and the United States also have problems with economically under-performing indigenous populations, their indigenous peoples form a much smaller percentage of their populations, so they are less of an economic burden.
With an aging white population increasingly dependent on the state for health and pension spending, there is likely to be increasing pressure on the government to reduce spending on low-income families at a time when Maori politicians are making increasing demands on the government to increase such spending and reduce immigration.
This situation puts the limited immigration supporting New Zealand First Party in a difficult position. Although rising commodity prices are making immigration restrictionism more economically justifiable, the country’s multi-cultural divisions appear to be acting as a significant break on productivity.
Money that previously went into long-term infrastructure development and research and development programmes is now going into such things as increased spending on law and order to manage an increasingly diverse population which is unable to manage itself.
At the global level, the majority of countries with high productivity rates, such as Korea and Japan, tend to be either culturally homogenous or, like the United States, are large enough to compete on economies on scale - New Zealand can’t compete under either criteria.
In the long run, the only solution out of this bind may be political union with Australia. In a combined Australian/New Zealand state, the Maori population would be less of a demographic threat to a European population of over 20 million, while New Zealand would not need to worry so much about skilled workers moving across the Tasman. Similarly, there would be less of an economic argument in favour of increasing immigration in order to expand the tax base.
Sadly though, it’s unlikely there is going to be any serious debate about this issue until the baby boomer generation starts retiring in about 5 years - by which time the government will be in a more fiscally desperate situation.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Thoughts on 300
War Nerd’s take on the new cartoon action epic 300, is that it’s essentially a neo-conservative propaganda piece that champions American values and takes a cheap shot at Iran.
While there is probably a lot of truth in this analysis, I do think the film’s critics have overlooked the significance of the Pelopennesse War in western culture.
Herodotus’s account of the Greek’s exploits in the war may well be one sided, but it seems to be an historical fact that in terms of numbers the Greeks thoroughly out fought the Persians.
The West has always been a labour poor civilisation, which has had to find ways to defend itself with inferior numbers. While Asiatic civilisations build up large populations through intensive grain farming, western nations, with less favourable climatic conditions, had to rely on low-intensity pastoral farming and seasonal grain crops. Such farming methods were not conducive to high population densities.
The resulting manpower shortage provided western civilisation with a strong incentive to develop labour saving technology and introduce a more individualistic social system. Democracy and citizenship were not so much about “self-actualisation” (as modern liberals assume) as about maximising each individual’s potential to help their city or nation state.
With fewer men, the ancient Greeks commanders had to use their manpower more resourcefully, and economically, than their Persian opponents and in doing so provided the inspiration for later audacious commanders like Alexander, Clive and Houston.
While there is probably a lot of truth in this analysis, I do think the film’s critics have overlooked the significance of the Pelopennesse War in western culture.
Herodotus’s account of the Greek’s exploits in the war may well be one sided, but it seems to be an historical fact that in terms of numbers the Greeks thoroughly out fought the Persians.
The West has always been a labour poor civilisation, which has had to find ways to defend itself with inferior numbers. While Asiatic civilisations build up large populations through intensive grain farming, western nations, with less favourable climatic conditions, had to rely on low-intensity pastoral farming and seasonal grain crops. Such farming methods were not conducive to high population densities.
The resulting manpower shortage provided western civilisation with a strong incentive to develop labour saving technology and introduce a more individualistic social system. Democracy and citizenship were not so much about “self-actualisation” (as modern liberals assume) as about maximising each individual’s potential to help their city or nation state.
With fewer men, the ancient Greeks commanders had to use their manpower more resourcefully, and economically, than their Persian opponents and in doing so provided the inspiration for later audacious commanders like Alexander, Clive and Houston.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Africa's population bomb
It’s refreshing to see a popular commentator like Gwynne Dyer (link here) addressing the politically incorrect topic of population growth.
Although growth rates are slowing in many parts of the world, Africa still has worrying high birth rates. As Dyer points out:
"Nine out of the 10 countries in the world with the highest birth rates are African (the other is Afghanistan) and it seemed uncomfortably like pointing the finger at the victim. But runaway population growth is a big factor in making so many Africans victims, and it doesn’t help to stay silent about it."
Dyer goes on to state:
“Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uganda, Somalia, Congo, Angola and Burundi have all been devastated by chronic, many sided civil wars, and all seven appear in the top 10 birth rate list.”
According to Dyer, Uganda is the worst culprit, population wise:
“Uganda’s birth-rate is seven children per woman, little change from 30 years ago. Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, believes that his country is under-populated, and told parliament last July: “I am not one of those worried about he population explosion. It is a great resource.”
Unfortunately, with today’s liberal immigration policies Africa’s problems may well become the West’s problems. That’s why I don’t really agree with conservatives who dismiss overpopulation as a thing of the past. It’s not just that western countries are having too few children, its that many poor countries are still having way too many.
The only way to put pressure on Africa to become more “demography responsible” it to make aid and debt relief dependent on declining birth rates.
Conservative environmentalist Garett Hardin has been suggesting for some time now that countries must be responsible for their own demographic problems if the world is to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Unfortunately, conservative realism is not very fashional in international aid circles and Hardin is likely to remain a voice in the wilderness for some time to come.
Although growth rates are slowing in many parts of the world, Africa still has worrying high birth rates. As Dyer points out:
"Nine out of the 10 countries in the world with the highest birth rates are African (the other is Afghanistan) and it seemed uncomfortably like pointing the finger at the victim. But runaway population growth is a big factor in making so many Africans victims, and it doesn’t help to stay silent about it."
Dyer goes on to state:
“Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uganda, Somalia, Congo, Angola and Burundi have all been devastated by chronic, many sided civil wars, and all seven appear in the top 10 birth rate list.”
According to Dyer, Uganda is the worst culprit, population wise:
“Uganda’s birth-rate is seven children per woman, little change from 30 years ago. Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, believes that his country is under-populated, and told parliament last July: “I am not one of those worried about he population explosion. It is a great resource.”
Unfortunately, with today’s liberal immigration policies Africa’s problems may well become the West’s problems. That’s why I don’t really agree with conservatives who dismiss overpopulation as a thing of the past. It’s not just that western countries are having too few children, its that many poor countries are still having way too many.
The only way to put pressure on Africa to become more “demography responsible” it to make aid and debt relief dependent on declining birth rates.
Conservative environmentalist Garett Hardin has been suggesting for some time now that countries must be responsible for their own demographic problems if the world is to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" situation. Unfortunately, conservative realism is not very fashional in international aid circles and Hardin is likely to remain a voice in the wilderness for some time to come.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Demography and the Middle East
In blogosphere debate on armed conflict in the Middle East, one factor is conspicuously absent from most discussions - demography. Given the huge demographic problems that the region faces this appears to be a big oversight.
Most countries in the Middle East have young, rapidly expanding populations, while the regions resources are in steady decline. Water is becoming scarcer while oil and gas are very unequally distributed. Many countries like Egypt are already dependent on grain producers like Australia and the U.S for basic grain supplies.
Traditional conservative Lawrence Auster argues that the primary reason for Islamic terrorism is the Islamic religion itself. He points out that many other developing countries have reason to dislike the West but you don’t see Nigerians or Burmese, for example, attacking US airliners. In terms of explaining the suicide attacks on Westerners, Auster’s cultural explanation is very plausible. Historically suicide attacks are quite a rare form of conflict yet are commonly carried out by young Muslims.
In terms of explaining the high general level of violence in the Middle East the cultural theory is more limited. Although, Islam may be a more aggressive religion than say Buddhism, only a relatively small proportion of the world’s huge Muslim population is actively engaged in terrorism. Furthermore, much of the conflict in the Middle East is between Muslims rather than between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The most common reasons for war are not culture or religion but disputes over resources. When you combine a shortage of resources with a large population of young aggressive males the chances of violence are greatly increased. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a classic resource war where large numbers of Iranians died attacking oil rich Iraqi. Only a country with a large surplus population of young males could tolerate such losses.
The current instability in Iraq has provided unemployed males from overpopulated countries like Pakistan, Iran and Jordan an opportunity to practice ‘’low risk’ terrorism against Americans and pro-Americans. Only well-educated, suicidal Muslims are willing to strike at Westerners on their home territory.
However, in the chaos of Iraq, terrorists with more limited training and courage have an excellent chance of inflicting damage on their enemies without losing their lives in the process. The good work the US and UK are doing in foiling attacks on the West is being undone by their blunders in Iraq.
The enormous losses Iran sustained in the conflict with Iraq have had a significant effect on the nation’s demographic policies. Iran, alone among Middle Eastern countries, has implemented a major population control program. Sadly, this policy has not been acknowledged by Western governments, or held up as good example for other Middle Eastern countries.
Ironically, the wealthiest country in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, has one of the most irresponsible attitudes to population control. If Saudi Arabia followed Iran’s example, and implemented a responsible population policy, it would be a great example for many other Middle Eastern states.
As well as supporting population control policies, Western governments need to send a firm message to nations in the Middle East that they can’t export their demographic problems to the developed world. There is no place for large numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims in western countries.
Most countries in the Middle East have young, rapidly expanding populations, while the regions resources are in steady decline. Water is becoming scarcer while oil and gas are very unequally distributed. Many countries like Egypt are already dependent on grain producers like Australia and the U.S for basic grain supplies.
Traditional conservative Lawrence Auster argues that the primary reason for Islamic terrorism is the Islamic religion itself. He points out that many other developing countries have reason to dislike the West but you don’t see Nigerians or Burmese, for example, attacking US airliners. In terms of explaining the suicide attacks on Westerners, Auster’s cultural explanation is very plausible. Historically suicide attacks are quite a rare form of conflict yet are commonly carried out by young Muslims.
In terms of explaining the high general level of violence in the Middle East the cultural theory is more limited. Although, Islam may be a more aggressive religion than say Buddhism, only a relatively small proportion of the world’s huge Muslim population is actively engaged in terrorism. Furthermore, much of the conflict in the Middle East is between Muslims rather than between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The most common reasons for war are not culture or religion but disputes over resources. When you combine a shortage of resources with a large population of young aggressive males the chances of violence are greatly increased. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a classic resource war where large numbers of Iranians died attacking oil rich Iraqi. Only a country with a large surplus population of young males could tolerate such losses.
The current instability in Iraq has provided unemployed males from overpopulated countries like Pakistan, Iran and Jordan an opportunity to practice ‘’low risk’ terrorism against Americans and pro-Americans. Only well-educated, suicidal Muslims are willing to strike at Westerners on their home territory.
However, in the chaos of Iraq, terrorists with more limited training and courage have an excellent chance of inflicting damage on their enemies without losing their lives in the process. The good work the US and UK are doing in foiling attacks on the West is being undone by their blunders in Iraq.
The enormous losses Iran sustained in the conflict with Iraq have had a significant effect on the nation’s demographic policies. Iran, alone among Middle Eastern countries, has implemented a major population control program. Sadly, this policy has not been acknowledged by Western governments, or held up as good example for other Middle Eastern countries.
Ironically, the wealthiest country in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, has one of the most irresponsible attitudes to population control. If Saudi Arabia followed Iran’s example, and implemented a responsible population policy, it would be a great example for many other Middle Eastern states.
As well as supporting population control policies, Western governments need to send a firm message to nations in the Middle East that they can’t export their demographic problems to the developed world. There is no place for large numbers of Middle Eastern Muslims in western countries.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
The Irrationality of New Zealand's Green Party
If the Green Party is anything to go by, environmetalism in New Zealand is in a sorry state. Perhaps the most glaring weakness in the Green's proposals is a total lack of any population policy. Surely if the Greens are really concerned with New Zeland's environment they should adopt a policy of limited immigration. Instead, they seem to be more concerned with the political rights of immigrants from dubious backgrounds such as Ahkmed Zouei. If New Zealand expects to survive as a first world country in an over-populated world it is going to have to turn away a lot of refugees. The Greens must abandon their outdated, marxist attitude to immigration.
The Greens also display a muddled attitude to transport issues. If it is so logical to spend less on roads, as the Greens argue, then why are the environmentally conscious Scandinavian countries spending more on roads? The fact is that even if petrol price scarcity reduces the number of petrol powered cars on the road we will still rely on roads as our primary surface for travel, whether for cars or scooters, bicycles and buses. Good quality roads reduce travel times and also save petrol, vehicle wear and tear, aid cyclists and reduce road fatalities. Why not upgrade our roads now before tarmac also becomes too expensive for large scale projects - it may be the last chance we get. The Greens would be better promoting bio-fuels that could reduce our CO2 emissions, create jobs and save on costly petroleum imports. Another ill-conceived proposal advocated by the Greens is increasing the tax on diesel. Clearly the Greens do not realise that diesel is a much better fuel than petrol, hence its popularity in Europe where fuel is more expensive.
In their claims for wind power the Greens are guilty of the sort of technological utopianism usually associatedwith the Act Party. Wind power is a useful adjunct to other forms of energy production but can only supply a small proportion of the nation's total energy requirements- wind can't power the Camalco Smelter for example. Only in the lower North Island (which is particularly windy!) can wind make a serious contribution to energy needs.
Job creation strategies are also absent from the Greens policies. Under the Greens, income tax would be raised while businesses would receive no R and D assistance to compensate them for a raft of new environmental regulations. However, most leading environmental economists believe that income taxes should be lowered at the same time that environmental taxes are increased. This would increase employment and give the Greens a better image among voters. Why should people vote for the Greens if their policies are going to put them out of work?
The Greens also display a muddled attitude to transport issues. If it is so logical to spend less on roads, as the Greens argue, then why are the environmentally conscious Scandinavian countries spending more on roads? The fact is that even if petrol price scarcity reduces the number of petrol powered cars on the road we will still rely on roads as our primary surface for travel, whether for cars or scooters, bicycles and buses. Good quality roads reduce travel times and also save petrol, vehicle wear and tear, aid cyclists and reduce road fatalities. Why not upgrade our roads now before tarmac also becomes too expensive for large scale projects - it may be the last chance we get. The Greens would be better promoting bio-fuels that could reduce our CO2 emissions, create jobs and save on costly petroleum imports. Another ill-conceived proposal advocated by the Greens is increasing the tax on diesel. Clearly the Greens do not realise that diesel is a much better fuel than petrol, hence its popularity in Europe where fuel is more expensive.
In their claims for wind power the Greens are guilty of the sort of technological utopianism usually associatedwith the Act Party. Wind power is a useful adjunct to other forms of energy production but can only supply a small proportion of the nation's total energy requirements- wind can't power the Camalco Smelter for example. Only in the lower North Island (which is particularly windy!) can wind make a serious contribution to energy needs.
Job creation strategies are also absent from the Greens policies. Under the Greens, income tax would be raised while businesses would receive no R and D assistance to compensate them for a raft of new environmental regulations. However, most leading environmental economists believe that income taxes should be lowered at the same time that environmental taxes are increased. This would increase employment and give the Greens a better image among voters. Why should people vote for the Greens if their policies are going to put them out of work?
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Why Over- Population Matters
Since the early 1980s the subject of over-population has largely disappeared from official discussions about third world poverty and environmental decline. As John Gray points out in Heresies, governments and environmental groups blame institutional failure these problems rather than demographics. However, much of the disinterest in over-population is due to political denial rather than rational inquiry.
Among U.S governments population control programmes have been promoted by the Democrats but rejected by the Republicans. Increases in spending on overseas family planning have been reversed by George Bush in line with his views on abortion. Liberal human rights advocates have also attacked population control programmes arguing that they infringe on individual rights. Although most of this criticism has been directed at the more extreme programmes like China's One Child Policy, it has helped undermine the legitimacy of population control programmes in general. The good work done by organisations like Sustainable Population International has also gone largely unnoticed in the Western media.
Another problem has been confusion over the extent of the over-population problem. In the 1980s the rate of population increase declined but the total world population will continue to increase untill at least 2040. Many media reports gave the impression that a slowing down of population growth would lead to rapid population stabilisation, but this hasn't occurred. Subsequently, the present world population of 6 billion will reach at least 7.5-8 billion. At present industrialisation in Southern China is having a big impact on world commodity prices. Soon this industrialisation may spread to the rest of China and India creating absolute scarcity of many essential resources. Subsequently, if the world's population grows beyond 7.5 billion, mass starvation could well occur in many poorer parts of the world.
Marxists and libertarians argue that the world can accomodate a continual increase in population through technological innovation and up to a point this is true. However, it is clearly apparent, even among developed countries, that a higher population leads to a poorer quality of life- compare Britain and Australia for example. Unless you want to live like a battery chicken, technology can't help you without population control. In poor politically unstable countries like Rwanda over-population can lead to genocide.
Similarly, just because some countries can accommodate large numbers of poeple successfully doesn't mean the whole planet can. The world is increasingly an economically integrated whole with the more sparsely populated countries supplying natural resources and farm products for the densely populated regions- under-populated countries don't really exist.
Although some developed countries have stable populations , the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand still have rapidly growing populations due to immigration. The population of the U.S will apparently reach 300 million in 2006. This immigration has been used to provide temporary economic growth and disguise poor levels of productivity. The winners have been the wealthy elites- particularly those engaged in property speculation. The U.S, Canada and Australasia have the highest rates of resource use per capita in the world. Adding to their populations will only accelerate consumption of finite resources and make it all the more difficult for their governments to agree to limits on emmissions.
Environmental decline is essentially caused by two factors- population growth and industrialisation. Unless over-population is addressed efforts to make industry more environmentally friendly will have little impact. It is also politically easier to get people to accept population control than it is to get them to accept a lower standard of living.
Among U.S governments population control programmes have been promoted by the Democrats but rejected by the Republicans. Increases in spending on overseas family planning have been reversed by George Bush in line with his views on abortion. Liberal human rights advocates have also attacked population control programmes arguing that they infringe on individual rights. Although most of this criticism has been directed at the more extreme programmes like China's One Child Policy, it has helped undermine the legitimacy of population control programmes in general. The good work done by organisations like Sustainable Population International has also gone largely unnoticed in the Western media.
Another problem has been confusion over the extent of the over-population problem. In the 1980s the rate of population increase declined but the total world population will continue to increase untill at least 2040. Many media reports gave the impression that a slowing down of population growth would lead to rapid population stabilisation, but this hasn't occurred. Subsequently, the present world population of 6 billion will reach at least 7.5-8 billion. At present industrialisation in Southern China is having a big impact on world commodity prices. Soon this industrialisation may spread to the rest of China and India creating absolute scarcity of many essential resources. Subsequently, if the world's population grows beyond 7.5 billion, mass starvation could well occur in many poorer parts of the world.
Marxists and libertarians argue that the world can accomodate a continual increase in population through technological innovation and up to a point this is true. However, it is clearly apparent, even among developed countries, that a higher population leads to a poorer quality of life- compare Britain and Australia for example. Unless you want to live like a battery chicken, technology can't help you without population control. In poor politically unstable countries like Rwanda over-population can lead to genocide.
Similarly, just because some countries can accommodate large numbers of poeple successfully doesn't mean the whole planet can. The world is increasingly an economically integrated whole with the more sparsely populated countries supplying natural resources and farm products for the densely populated regions- under-populated countries don't really exist.
Although some developed countries have stable populations , the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand still have rapidly growing populations due to immigration. The population of the U.S will apparently reach 300 million in 2006. This immigration has been used to provide temporary economic growth and disguise poor levels of productivity. The winners have been the wealthy elites- particularly those engaged in property speculation. The U.S, Canada and Australasia have the highest rates of resource use per capita in the world. Adding to their populations will only accelerate consumption of finite resources and make it all the more difficult for their governments to agree to limits on emmissions.
Environmental decline is essentially caused by two factors- population growth and industrialisation. Unless over-population is addressed efforts to make industry more environmentally friendly will have little impact. It is also politically easier to get people to accept population control than it is to get them to accept a lower standard of living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
