Global Population Decline and Impacts

The developed world zeitgeist, especially Anglosphere, is that population growth has been one of the key issues of environmental sustainability and nativist conservative politics, left and right.  However, as the article from First Links below explains, we are in fact approaching peak population, due to below replacement fertility and to be followed by ageing and decline, or balance?

Many are realising that ‘population growth’ is not such an issue, it has stalled with long term fertility decline (below replacement), while recent analysis suggests peak mid century (Lancet etc.) while researchers Bricker & Ibbitson (‘Empty Planet’) predict precipitous decline after the peak.

The headline number is not the issue but as the late Hans Rosling said, it’s the make-up and how the population is managed at different life stages e.g. oldies now outnumber youth which has electoral repercussions when voting for short term horizons aka Brexit.

Population obsessions, have also been used to support an unsubstantiated environmental link of ‘sciency sounding’ PR that deflects from carbon regulation, fossil fuels, often blames ‘immigration’ to at least preserve the status quo; from the time of Malthus and Galton through ZPG, and the UNPD (whose formulae are used by ABS & UK too).

The issue is not just skills gaps nor is demanding all retirees continue to work (involuntarily), but how to fund budgets when we are dependent upon taxes from working age and temporary churnover via PAYE system, but these cohorts are in decline viz a viz increasing numbers of retirees?

OECD demographic data, i.e. medium to long term trends of working age/retirees + kids, is more informative and gives comparisons with other nations, vs. our obsessions with short term headline NOM net overseas migration data snapshots that make for media headlines (but normally dominated by students and backpackers).

Quite obvious, like elsewhere, temporary churn over is important, as ‘net financial contributors’ to support budgets, when more retirees/pensioners are tugging on the same with ageing declining tax payers.

Click through to see OECD Australian working age demographics with other comparable nations. 

All have passed the ‘demographic sweet spot’, hence, how can budgets be supported further? Increase taxes for low income types and/or retirees (mooted in the US by some in the GOP), or cut services and health care, or privatise more services for user pays (political suicide)?

From First Links Newsletter Australia:

‘Embracing the bright side of population decline

Emma Davidson   30 March 2022

A growing body of research is showing that global population growth is slowing down and will likely drop into negative territory within the next few decades.

One study predicted that the global population would peak at 9.7 billion people in 2064 – up from around 7.9 billion currently – before falling to 8.8 billion by the end of this century. If this is true, it’ll be the first sustained period of world population decline since the Black Death.

But what’s worrying some experts today is that many countries are already seeing natural population growth come to a standstill. Here in Australia, the lack of immigration contributed to population growth of practically zero in the year to March 2021 . Similar stories are playing out in the UK, the US, and many other developed countries.

Shrinking populations and financial markets

What economic impact will these demographics shifts have? After all, we can’t ignore the human aspect of our economies. Financial markets are complex, interconnected ecosystems, and our attitudes and behaviour are key to how they perform.

Well, when it comes to population decline, many analysts are bearish.

They say lower birth rates create ageing nations, with fewer people available to look after the elderly. These stretched workforces limit innovation and productivity. Growing economies need growing populations, it is claimed.

However, I believe this is an overly pessimistic view. I’m far more bullish about the impact of declining populations. There are many possible benefits to having fewer people in the world. And I suspect even the negatives aren’t quite as bad as people suggest, given humans have an incredible knack for adapting to change.

Wage growth

It’s widely thought that a smaller working-age population could lift wages. Fewer workers give the labour market greater bargaining power, leading to better working conditions.

There would also likely be more opportunities for women and ethnic minorities, increasing workforce diversity. Research shows that diverse organisations tend to financially outperform their less inclusive competitors. They are also six times more likely to be innovative and agile.

Economic growth might slow, but it is my hope that the above changes would lead to healthier, happier, and more engaged workers – and a more even wealth distribution.

The late Swedish statistician Hans Rosling argued convincingly for bringing the world’s final 1 billion people out of extreme poverty to limit population growth and provide better opportunities for millions of families who are struggling.

I’m confident that humans can adjust to a ‘new normal’ where economic growth is still a goal, but not the only goal. Instead, perhaps we can focus more on creating a world where living standards and wealth distribution are our barometers of success.

Then, freed from poverty, some people will inevitably go on to become the scientists, entrepreneurs and leaders of tomorrow that we’ll need when populations decline.

Innovation and productivity

The conventional logic is that bigger is better when it comes to population and innovation. More people means more researchers and innovators (as well as more consumers to sell to). And yet, only three of Bloomberg’s top 10 most innovative economies have populations exceeding 10 million people (South Korea, Germany and Sweden).

So, it’s clearly not just a numbers game.

Investing in education and encouraging more people to work in research and development also facilitates the flow of new ideas. Furthermore, automation can accelerate innovation and productivity by performing all of the tedious, time-consuming tasks that would usually fall to humans, freeing them up for more value-oriented work.

Initial predictions for automation were bleak. The ‘rise of the robots’ would mean job losses, economists said, as employers replaced workers en-masse with machines that never get sick or tired.

More recent research is challenging that theory. One study found that each robot per 1,000 employees boosts employment at a firm by 2.2%. Essentially, automation makes companies more competitive and profitable, helping them to grow the business and swell their ranks.

Sustainability matters

It’s common to hear industry commentators make statements like “ignoring the environmental benefits for a moment” or “sustainability aside” when talking about population decline. But we can’t simply forget about the environment. It’s too important. Ever-growing populations continue to put a strain on the world and its resources.

Declining populations can help

Researchers recently calculated that having one child fewer saves approximately 59 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. “Having one less child saves each parent more than 20 times (of CO2 emissions) as living without a car, or about 70 times as much as eliminating meat from the diet” Sustainable Population Australia says.

To be clear, I’m not advocating that people should stop having children. I have written previously about the potential repercussions of a ‘baby bust’ if rising infertility rates are ignored. In addition, and as things stand right now, the global human population begins to decline at the end of this century and is likely to continue along the decline trajectory.

What I am wanting to highlight is the environmental benefits that are associated with population decline.

Finding the right balance

Of course, there are some roles that robots simply can’t fill. Ageing populations will place more pressure on our healthcare and elderly care systems, for example. And it’s hard to imagine artificial intelligence ever having as good a bedside manner as a real doctor or nurse.

Australia’s healthcare and superannuation systems are excellent, which should relieve some of this burden. But we must also find ways to make certain roles, such as elderly care, more rewarding.

Automation is therefore just one piece of the puzzle. We must also recognise there are complex services that only humans can provide.

There are undoubtedly challenges we face with declining populations, and I don’t pretend to have the answers.

But do our narratives have to be so gloomy? There is far more room for optimism based on the human capacity to adapt.’

Emma Davidson is Head of Corporate Affairs at London-based Staude Capital, manager of the Global Value Fund (ASX:GVF). This article is the opinion of the writer and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

For more articles and blogs on immigration, population growth, demography and economics click through:

Limits to Growth – Jorgen Randers – Club of Rome

Hans Rosling – GapMinder – Factfulness – Human Development – Adult Education

China PRC – Fertility Decline – Peak Population?

Population Growth or Decline?

Population, Environment and White Nationalists in Australia – US Links

US or UK Sanctions on Murdoch’s Fox News Support for Putin’s Russia?

Interesting article by Nick Cohen suggesting sanctions for Murdoch’s Fox News, and highlighting influence through to the left in the Anglosphere, where there is support for Putin’s Russia and his interests.  

Seems to be shared white Christian nationalist interests and issues between Putin’s Russia, the GOP representing business, libertarian ideology of Koch Network think tanks and also the left, not to forget many Conservative and some Labour MPs compromised by Russian influence, like many of the far right in Europe.

These pivotal interests or issues that should concern the nominal or ideological left, at least in the Anglosphere, are antipathy towards the EU, liberal democracy, open society, human rights etc. while supporting Brexit, Trump, fossil fuels, climate/Covid science denial, doubts and delays to transition; and attacks on civil society through dog whistling of women’s, men’s, LGBT, etc. rights and ridiculing the ‘left’ for ‘wokeness’, ‘cancel culture’ etc.

‘Fox News deals in Kremlin propaganda. So why not freeze Rupert Murdoch’s assets?

Nick Cohen

If NewsCorp’s owner were Russian, there would be no hesitation in applying sanctions

If the west could find the courage, it would order an immediate freeze of Rupert Murdoch’s assets. His Fox News presenters and Russia’s propagandists are so intermeshed that separating the two is as impossible as unbaking a cake.

On Russian state news, as on Fox, bawling ideologues scream threats then whine about their victimhood as they incite anger and self-pity in equal measures. Its arguments range from the appropriation of anti-fascism by Greater Russian imperialists – the 40 countries supporting Ukraine were “today’s collective Hitler”, viewers were told last week – to the apocalyptic delirium of the boss of RT (Russia Today) Margarita Simonyan. Nuclear war is my “horror”, she shuddered, “but we will go to heaven, while they will simply croak”.

Russia would never give genuine western journalists airtime. But it can always find a slot for its favourite quisling: Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. He pushes out Russian propaganda lines or perhaps creates his own lies for Russia to use. Ukraine, not Russia, is the real tyranny. Nato provoked poor Vladimir Putin. The west is plotting to use biological weapons. Last week, he floated the theory that the war was not the result of an unprovoked invasion by a colonialist dictatorship but of the Biden administration’s desire to avenge Donald Trump’s victory in 2016.

It was a big hit in Moscow, reported BuzzFeed’s Julia Davis. “State TV propagandists loved it so much, Russia’s 60 Minutes included it not once, but twice in their evening broadcast – neatly bookended by the Kremlin’s war propaganda.”

Putin’s appeal to both the far right and the Chomskyan wing of the far left in Europe and North America is worthy of a study in itself. He was a dream for ultra-reactionaries: a white, Christian strongman, who was anti-liberal and anti-EU. His victories heralded a world in which might was right and morality was for losers.

In Europe, Russia’s atrocities have forced everyone from Arron Banks and Nigel Farage to Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini to find urgent reasons to change the subject. In the US, there remains a market for Putinism among a large minority of Republican voters. Their yearning for dictatorship, as evidenced by the support given to denying legitimate election results and to the fascistic forces that stormed Congress, is greater. The hatred of liberals in power is deeper.

Murdoch is boosting Russian morale and, conversely, undermining Ukrainian resolve by supplying a dictatorship with foreign validation. Do not underestimate its importance. Russians who suspect their TV anchors are state-sponsored bootlickers are more likely to believe foreign commentators who assure them that the lies they are hearing are true. 

Reporters risk their lives but Putin cannot fire or imprison Fox News presenters, steal their wealth or poison them with Novichok. Russian forces will not reduce their towns to rubble, rape them, torture them, burn them alive in theatres or shoot them in the head by the side of forest roads. Murdoch and his employees have nothing to fear from Putin. Their endorsement of Kremlin war propaganda carries conviction because it is freely given.

Murdoch boosts Russian morale and undermines Ukrainian resolve by supplying a dictatorship with foreign validation.

As useful to Russia is the wider chilling effect. I have seen journalists start off making eloquent and plausible critiques of the left’s hatred of free speech, for instance, or its tolerance of regressive religion, only to find that careers in the worst of the rightwing media come with a price tag. To succeed on Fox News in the US, they don’t have to agree with banning abortion or denying climate change but they must never make their objections public.

The UK’s sanctions regulations include among the reasons for freezing an oligarch’s assets “obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia”. The Biden White House promises to punish those “responsible for providing the support necessary to underpin Putin’s war on Ukraine”. On both interpretations, there is a plausible prosecution case for freezing the assets of Murdoch’s NewsCorp.

Because it is a media conglomerate, sanctions would be an attack on free speech. I say this plainly because so many writers and political actors pretend that they are not demanding censorship when that is precisely what they are doing. Nevertheless, in this case the threat to freedom is minimal. Murdoch would not be punished for revealing embarrassing truths about the west but for spreading demonstrable lies for a hostile foreign power.

If you still feel queasy, imagine if Murdoch’s media organisation were exactly as it is today and producing the same arguments the Kremlin uses to justify its crimes. The one difference is that Murdoch is Russian rather than Australian. I don’t believe there would be the slightest hesitation in removing him and his family from control of their businesses. Indeed, the UK, EU and US have already announced sanctions against Russian broadcasters and individual journalists. I have not heard anyone claim that they are attacking press freedom, rather than trying to cripple the propaganda capacity of a warmongering state.

The Murdoch empire contains the Times and Wall Street Journal, whose Russian coverage has been admirable, and HarperCollins, which with a bravery few other publishers would match, fought off a vicious legal assault by the Russian oligarchy and their pet London lawyers against a critical study of Putin’s power.

But good deeds count for nothing in assessing the desirability of sanctions. The tycoon Oleg Tinkov spoke for many rich Russians when he denounced the “massacre” in Ukraine and called for an end to the “crazy war”. The oligarchs the west has sanctioned are losing their fortunes and what little influence they had. Of course they hate Putin’s strategy. Western governments don’t care because, as Tom Keatinge of the Royal United Services Institute explains it to me, they know that a large portion of oligarchical wealth is at Putin’s disposal. Their private thoughts and, when they dare risk assassination attempts, public protests are irrelevant. The need to end war in Europe comes first.

Tender-hearted readers may object that Murdoch is now 90 and may well not be in full control of his organisation. But surely this is an argument for removing him? If in his dotage he is allowing himself to become a cross between Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose, it would be a kindness for western governments to save him from himself.

For related articles on EU European Union, Evangelical Christianity, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Media, Political Strategy, Russia and White Nationalism click through:

Madison Grant – Eugenics, Heredity, Class, Immigration, Great Replacement, Conservation and Nazis

Koch Industries – Putin – Russia – Ukraine – Koch Network – Think Tanks

Koch Industries: How to Influence Politics, Avoid Fossil Fuel Emission Control and Environmental Protections

World Congress Of Families WCF, Russia, The Kremlin, Christian Conservative Nationalists, Dugin, Conservatives and US Evangelicals

Putin’s Russia – Dugin – Alt Right – White Christian Nationalism – the Anglosphere and Europe

Neo Conservative Rasputins? Putin and Dugin – Trump and Bannon – Johnson, Brexit and Cummings

Russian Dark Money – Influencing British Politics, the Conservative Party, the GOP and European Right

Madison Grant – Eugenics, Heredity, Class, Immigration, Great Replacement, Conservation and Nazis

In recent years we have observed the rise of white nationalism, alt &/or far right, nativism, eugenics, neo-Nazis etc. in the Anglosphere and Europe, often underpinned by divisive dog whistle politics through legacy media. For one to understand modern Anglo &/or European nativism, the past of eugenics and conservation in the US especially, the history of Madison Grant starting over a century ago, needs to be scrutinised. Following is a brief but incomplete overview from relevant literature, including Grant’s own writings.

Madison Grant was born in the 19th century and is still influential from his work in early 20th century round eugenics, conservation and issues of liberal democracy; Grant actually though that ‘non-experts’ should not be involved in democracy and education should not be encouraged (Grant 1919) .

‘Grant was among the most vocal and strident supporters of a eugenic approach to social control, and virtually every historian who has dealt with the eugenics movement mentions or discusses Grant’s work to some extent.’ (Regal 2004).

It has been suggested that Grant’s selective views round eugenics and humanity were developed by changing demographics in north east US with increasing numbers of non WASP or non Nordic immigrants, claiming a ‘great replacement’ (Hoff 2020).

Around the turn of the 19th to 20th century, after the ‘melting pot’ era, is when more focus appeared on the supposed need for immigration restrictions and the realisation from WWI that WASPs were being outnumbered by immigrants; again the ‘great replacement’ (Grant 1924).

Themes or areas Grant explored, researched, wrote and promoted, included politics, class, environment, heredity, ‘intellectual’ racism, reproduction, race betterment and that of families, AER American Eugenics Research, Birth Control League & Planned Parenthood, AES American Eugenics Society, immigration restrictions, population control and ‘the great replacement’ leading onto extremism (Grant 1919).

Further, Grant uses the expression ‘internationalisation’ versus nowadays ‘globalisation’ which is used as a pejorative term by the right and left in politics, but for Grant possibly suggested miscegenation too? Grant went further, highlighting the importance of race by claiming Nordic bourgeoisie are being ruined by Alpine peasants, and also challenges valuable ethnic elements of Russia, versus Europe (Ibid.).

Eugenics Organisations

Grant was known for his book “The Passing of the Great Race, or The Racial Basis of European History,” of ideas masquerading as science, antipathy towards non Nordic versus Nordic, who were being overtaken by Alpine or Mediterranean types. Was this an example of the emerging ‘great replacement’ trope that has returned of late (Purdy 2015)?

Interest in eugenics brought the ‘Embryo Project’ along with ‘Experimental Evolution’, ‘Race Betterment Foundation’ and the ERO Eugenics Records Office. (Gur-Arie 2014). A collaborator Grant’s was Charles Davenport who was influential in founding the Eugenics Record Office in 1910 which acted as a research laboratory and repository for genealogical data in Cold Spring Harbour New York (Regal 2004).

Grant founded or was involved in many organisations, but the ongoing theme was always related to eugenics. These organisations included AES American Eugenics Society established by Grant, Laughlin, Crampton, Fisher and Osborn to manage reproduction, in 1924 (Gur-Arie 2014). AES presented at fairs promoting contests round ‘Fitter Families’ and statistical analysis of ‘able bodied’ compared to ‘degenerates’. Gur-Arie, R. (Ibid.). Perkins founded the ‘Birth Control League’, founded by Margaret Sanger, the precursor of ‘Planned Parenthood’ (Ibid.).

AES Under Huntington 1934-8 moved from promoting positive eugenics to negative eugenics whereby the latter need to be discouraged from breeding (Gur-Arie 2014). In 1939, Eugenical News moved to the Eugenics Research Association to the AES and till the mid 1950s was the primary source of eugenics news (Ibid.).

Before Grant established the Galton Society in 1918 he was already a member, and President 1918 to 1919 of the Eugenics Research Association, plus member of American Defense League and the Immigration Restriction League. He was also involved in Second (‘21) and Third (‘32) International Eugenics Congresses hosted at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City that gave Harry H. Laughlin and Ernst Rüdin, some infamy (Hoff 2020).

Influencers & Influence

In 1905 Thomas Dixon’s novel ‘The Clansman’ appeared and had an account of the Ku Klux Klan as people became aware of Negro migration to the north. (McDaniel 1997). Grant also related conservation of nature and wildlife to racial science; still apparent today under the guise of population growth (Ibid.).

Around the time of Theodore Roosevelt pre WWI, Grant developed the “racialist moment” emerging with eugenics and intellectual racism till the Great Depression. ‘Conservationists’ like Grant and others were criticised for having more moral concern for the environment and non-human life than they did for human beings in general, who they wished to avoid; suggesting a class system (Purdy 2015).

The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 also drew upon Grant’s support and legal expertise in drafting and lobbying for immigration restrictions (Hoff 2020). According to Grant the Nordic people were superior, his book ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ was described by Hitler as his ‘bible’ and was produced by the defence as evidence of eugenics not being a German phenomenon at Nuremberg trials, but introduced by the US (Ibid). The same also allegedly influenced immigration policies in the British Empire or Anglosphere and the need to screen for ‘hereditary fitness’ to exclude ‘mentally defective’ (McDaniel 1997).

Kühl demonstrated that the impact of American eugenics was also strongly felt in Nazi Germany, where the works of Grant, Stoddard, and other American eugenicists were standard citations (Whitman 2018). After 1933 the glory days of eugenics were threatened by Nazism favouring ‘negative eugenics’ (McDaniel 1997).

Eugenics Post WWI and later 20th Century

During the ‘60s at Princeton a crossover between geneticists and population or demographic specialists emerged whereby scientists linked social/physical environment factors with heredity and human development. (Gur-Arie 2014)

While growth or interest in the Sierra Club on conservation emerged in the ‘70s, William Vogt encouraged eugenics to alleviate what was viewed, unscientifically, as overpopulation. This then led onto ZPG Zero Population Growth with Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich who seemed affected on environment by a revelatory visit to Delhi in India where he was confronted with humanity, poverty and slum, blaming overpopulation (Purdy 2015).

Grant has had strong influence over time from his own writing, efforts round eugenics research, informing immigration policies, in addition to influencing both Britain and Nazi Germany, then for eugenics to be submerged within other manifestations including immigration and population growth.

References

Grant, M., (1919). DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE ON DEMOCRACY AND HEREDITY Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article-abstract/10/4/164/818813 by University of California Santa Barbara/Davidson Library user on 24 March 2018

Grant, M., (1924). The Racial Transformation of America. The North American Review. Mar., 1924, Vol. 219, No. 820 (Mar., 1924), pp. 343- 352 Published by: University of Northern Iowa Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25113246

Gur-Arie, R., (2014). “American Eugenics Society (1926-1972)”. Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2014-11-22). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/8241.

Hoff, A., (2020). “Madison Grant (1865–1937)”. Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2021-06-20). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/13278. Show full item record (https://hpsrepository.asu.edu/handle/10776/13278)

McDaniel, G., (1997). Madison Grant and the Racialist Movement – The distinguished origins of racial activism. American Renaissance. Vol. 8, No. 12 December 1997

Purdy, J., (2015). New Yorker Environmentalism’s Racist History. August 13, 2015 [Viewed 2 May 2022]. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/environmentalisms-racist-history

Regal, B., (2004). Madison Grant, Maxwell Perkins, and Eugenics Publishing at Scribner’s, The Princeton University Library Chronicle, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Winter 2004), pp. 317- 342 Published by: Princeton University Library Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.25290/prinunivlibrchro.65.2.0317

Whitman, J (2018). Hitler’s American Model The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 33, Issue 2, Fall 2019, Pages 277–279, Princeton University Press https://doi.org/10.1093/hgs/dcz039

Related articles and blogs

Adam Smith – Classical Liberal Economics or Conservative Calvinist Christianity or White Christian Nationalism?

Ghosts of Galton and Eugenics Return – Society, Population and Environment in the 21st Century

The Bell Curve – Eugenics – IQ – Libertarian Levelling Up of Minorities and Society?

Trump’s White House Immigration Policies and White Nationalist John Tanton

Anglosphere Triangle – Immigration – Environment – Population Growth – Radical Right Libertarians