- Free newsletter
- The Latest
- Topics
-
About
Thank goodness for the Population Research Institute. Somebody is telling us the truth about the world birth dearth
Steven Mosher is his own man: an attribute, which, in our corrupt epoch, is a decided disadvantage. Thinking for oneself, no matter the mania, fad or fashion into which the mass of humanity is herded, has cost him dearly. Those of us “bitter clingers” who still value archaic concepts such as integrity understand that elite opprobrium comes with the territory of not selling your soul to get ahead.
Yet get ahead he has. Mr. Mosher is president of the Population Research Institute, thus he knows a thing or two about demography.
[The Institute’s] core values hold that people are the world’s greatest resource. PRI’s goals are to educate on this premise, to expose the myth of overpopulation, and to expose human rights abuses committed in population control programs. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 80 countries.
They’ve got some heavy lifting to do. So Mr Mosher didn’t mince words in a profound New York Post piece that speaks volumes about the state of our world.
Just the facts
His essay is headlined “The world is running out of children as birthrates are collapsing across the globe.”Clickbait? Drama? I know, NYP does play to the crowd. But his straightforward essay simply lays out the facts:
The collapse in birth rates that began in post-war Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every single corner of the globe.
Many nations are already feeling this death spiral, filling more coffins than cradles each year.
Just this past year, Japan lost nearly a million people, Poland 130,000. [That’s over 100 every hour]
The big story comes from China, home to one-sixth of the world’s population.
The decades-long devastation wrought by the one-child policy has sent that country, for centuries the pacesetter in population, into absolute decline.
China finally admitted that its population was shrinking, but demographers — including myself — believe that the numbers have actually been falling for almost a decade.
The Chinese government’s official population figure of 1.44 billion also greatly exaggerates its overall numbers, some analysts say by as much as 130 million people.
India, the country that has now overtaken China in population, is still growing, but not for long.
The average Indian woman was having only two children over her reproductive lifetime, the Indian government reported in 2021, well below the 2.25 or so needed to sustain the current population.
The same story is being repeated all over the world, as birthrates in Latin America, the Middle East, and even Africa are not just falling — they are collapsing.
Has he left anything out? Not since the bubonic plague has there been a similar culling of the human species like that into which we are headed. Homo sapiens has been around an estimated 60,000 years. Perhaps advanced civilizations are aberrations. We are surely dismantling those temporal achievements by not reproducing ourselves.
Did I mention that Mr Mosher is a veteran China hand? He was recognised as such early on when President Jimmy Carter facilitated his studying in China, this in the days before Westerners could simply come and go to the Middle Kingdom. China has made great strides of late, but the government tightly “manages” information, especially about demography. It is not good to not look good. University of Wisconsin demographer Dr Yi Fuxian has warned us for years about cooked population stats handed down by the Politburo.
But what is new here? Mercator’s stable of writers has already told us as much about the impending – already underway – demographic collapse. It is thanks to the tireless work of Mr Mosher and his ilk that we can do so.
My take: It is time to stop beating around the bush about population collapse. Nothing short of a social revolution is required to turn things around. By that, I mean a reordering of values and priorities towards a family-centric rather than profit-centric world. Mammon worship has clearly failed us.
Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis
Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.
Disinformation
Candor aside, Mr. Mosher’s message is also valuable as an information strategy. Hear me out. The popular press, such as “tabloid” New York Post, is largely off the radar of chattering elites; appearing in its pages disseminates important information apart from the dysfunctional thinking and censorious filtering of legacy media. Mr Mosher:
Now you may be excused for not knowing about the current birth dearth.
After all, powerful international agencies like the UN Population Fund and the World Bank have done their best to keep it out of the public eye.
Moreover, these agencies, set up during the height of the hysteria over “overpopulation” in the 1960s, like to overestimate births in one country, and pad population numbers in another.
Sounds like a conspiracy theorist – until you understand that yes, Virginia, governments, NGOs, etc. lie all the time about population, fertility, wars, inflation and just about everything else. Regime media is their megaphone.
The New York Post has been down this road before. In October 2016 it ran factual pieces about “secret emails” from the Hunter Biden laptop tying the “big guy” to corruption. The ink was barely dry when 51 veteran intelligence professionals signed a letter telling the American people that the story “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Not true. As far as I know, none of those folks has paid any price for their chicanery. I digress.
Fibbing for profit
Why fudge population stats? Wouldn’t we all be better off learning the truth about humanity’s prospects? This is so important. Mosher zeroes in on the United Nations, which has projected population peaking decades later than other studies. What gives?
The UN exaggerates human numbers for the same reason that the Biden-Harris administration exaggerates employment numbers: for financial gain and political survival.
There are billions of dollars at stake, funding that is fueled by a dark fear of mushrooming human numbers.
The population control movement does not intend to go quietly to its grave, even as it continues to dig humanity’s own, so it feeds this fear.
There we have it. Once again, it’s all about filthy lucre. That social revolution, if it ever comes, will need to do some serious culling of the budgets of these globalist agents of influence. That’ll be a very tall order, but I can tell you this: big changes are coming on the world scene.
Hang on to your hat.
Forward this article to your friends!
Louis T. March has a background in government, business, and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author, and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Image credit: Bigstock
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.
-
Michael Cook commented 2024-09-06 15:22:29 +1000Thanks for that. Could you please give the source? Sometimes the source is even more biased than the article. Just saying.
-
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-09-06 13:48:28 +1000Probably also worth noting “The Population Research Institute (PRI) is a Catholic 501©3 non-profit organization and advocacy group based in Front Royal, Virginia, US. The organization opposes abortion. They believe that overpopulation is a myth, and oppose hormonal birth control in females and vasectomies in males.”
-
Tim Lee commented 2024-09-05 10:37:47 +1000Speaking of rich and poor nations, Pope Francis is visiting Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and Singapore this month. Here’s a Singaporean take on a song about how a spark can start a fire of hope and optimism… and love. The song itself runs for 4 min, followed by 4 min of outtakes and credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3cwGXlwsmc
-
Tim Lee commented 2024-09-05 09:49:40 +1000We are prone to looking for bad guys (politicians, capitalists, extremists… ‘the other’) to blame for our woes, for something dramatic to change the world. When will we see that it’s not so much a war as a battle for minds and hearts, and that enduring change starts within? Unless we reflect and reassess where we are heading, we will grow further and further apart from each other and from solving anything, like two not-so-parallel lines that end up miles apart. No amount of tinkering with economics or technology or whatever will bring us any closer to a solution.
It’s not about money, or else we would be having more kids as our GDP has grown over decades and richer nations would have higher fertility rates. Poorer nations continue to grow while ‘we’ (in the West) decline. It’s about hope and optimism in the future. It’s about the agony and ecstasy of family life, being needed in a fundamental way and the joy of meeting that need. Mother Teresa saw more joy in the faces of children in the slums of Calcutta than in the affluent West. The meek shall indeed inherit the earth. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-04 21:11:36 +1000Tim Lee,
“Steven, cultural change starts with each of us. It’s not about some master plan to change the world. It’s about changing hearts and minds one conversation at a time, like the conversations taking place here.”
It’s not about a master plan. It’s about wresting control of government from corporate interests so that you can create an environment in which people feel having families is a viable option. Plainly a growing number of people feel it’s not in the current environment.
Paul Bunyan and Tim Lee.
In past times in reasonably advanced countries most people lived on farms or in villages. Accommodation was usually not an issue. Healthcare costs weren’t an issue because there was almost non worth having. Most children ceased to be a financial burden and became an asset around the age of 8 – assuming they made it to that age. Literacy was not a requirement for most work.
Compare that with the situation today in which parents usually support each child for 18 or more years and when the cost of housing has skyrocketed.
You may bewail the fact that potential parents take these factors into account before starting a family but good luck trying to persuade them they shouldn’t. -
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-09-04 17:52:44 +1000Nonsense, Tim. People had large families in the 18th and 19th centuries because they needed children to work on the farms. It was a necessary strategy for survival.
It had nothing to do with being optimistic and hopeful for the future.
There’s nothing “selfish” or “decadent” in remaining childfree or adopting children, despite what you’re implying. -
mrscracker commented 2024-09-04 17:18:34 +1000Those were some thoughtful comments Mr. Lee. Thank you so much and God bless you.
🙂 -
Tim Lee commented 2024-09-04 17:14:46 +1000Paul, poverty and conflict in poorer countries are not due to having more kids. People there have more kids because, faced with basic questions of life and death, they see that life is worth living, bringing forth and nurturing. Unlike us in the West, they don’t have the luxury of losing their sense of family in decadent lifestyles.
Steven, cultural change starts with each of us. It’s not about some master plan to change the world. It’s about changing hearts and minds one conversation at a time, like the conversations taking place here. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-04 07:49:59 +1000Susan Rhorbach
Housing, groceries, healthcare, clothing, electricity, transport are decidedly not free.
However, there is one thing I will add.
I have never gone into debt to acquire a car. I understand there are times when a vehicle may be a necessity and someone may have to take out a car loan.
Unless you really need a pickup or great big SUV, buying one with debt as so many Americans do strikes me as crazy. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-04 07:44:14 +1000Tim Lee: “I look to a fundamental cultural shift.”
That’s what Louis T March said.
So I come back to my original challenge.
Give me the outline of a realistic plan to bring about this “cultural shift”
The emphasis on “realistic” – a plan that deals with the world as it is, not as you may wish it to be.
Let’s see it. -
Susan Rohrbach commented 2024-09-04 00:00:24 +1000“When women don’t have an education and can’t get jobs, they have nothing to do with their time except get pregnant and have children.”
When women mortgage their life with student debt, they condemn their children to abortion lest that Golden indentured career be disrupted.
The best things in life, and education, are free. Those who can, homeschool. -
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-09-03 19:23:20 +1000Sorry, Tim, but they are just platitudes.
Your suggestion is to elevate women, have children and hope things will work out.
Unfortunately, there are too many variables in real life. Having more children won’t necessarily make things better for the family, and it certainly won’t make things better for the country or the global human community.
Countries with higher birth rates always suffer from increase crime, violence, poverty and misery.
We certainly can’t keep having children until every square inch is filled with humans. Population growth must stop eventually. The sooner the better. -
Tim Lee commented 2024-09-03 19:19:39 +1000Steven, you make a good point about genetic predisposition. While we are both hopeful that the population pendulum will swing back, I don’t think we agree on why and how. You ask for specific steps while I look to a fundamental cultural shift. Nature won’t take its course if hope and optimism are dissipated in a culture of me first, second and third.
Paul, they are not platitudes any more than Ann Farmer’s story is a fairy tale. Did you read it? What I write comes from first-hand experience of what needs to change. Wars begin in our hearts as does peace. The birth dearth will not be solved by tinkering with economics or technology or laws but by an awakening to the truth that children are an investment in our future. -
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-09-03 17:46:33 +1000Tim, those platitudes are empty and do nothing to help people with the realities of life.
Giving birth doesn’t magically make millions of dollars appear in your bank account, now does it? And the government certainly won’t give you vouchers for five years of free daycare, diapers and baby formula, will it? -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-03 17:07:44 +1000Tim Lee,
“As though there are only two seasons. Winter will give way to spring…”
That is precisely the point I’m making.
Forecasts made on the basis of a trend continuing indefinitely have always proved to be wrong. -
Tim Lee commented 2024-09-03 16:43:48 +1000The usual false dilemmas are being trotted out again and again:
1. Be childless and happy or have kids and struggle… and see the kids suffer. As though life is not a struggle. As though parents have not struggled all along and discovered that it’s part of growing up.
2. Force women to bear children or allow them to go out and work. As though office is heaven and hearth is hell. As though women cannot be fulfilled as stay-home mums, perhaps with a secondary work-from-home career. Read Ann Farmer’s piece on traditional mums as a formidable force for good.
3. Freeze in a demographic winter or swelter in a demographic summer. As though there are only two seasons. Winter will give way to spring if we think outside the confines of our materialistic mindset. We must (and will) rediscover that children are a blessing, not a curse to be avoided with contraception or abortion.
4. Plan our families or plan to fail. As though life can be planned. Einstein got it right that “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” Life is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be lived. Plan to be pleasantly surprised or see our wilful dreams crumble in the light of day. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-03 15:08:15 +1000Paul Bunyan:
OK, stopping access to contraception and depriving women of an education could work. Not even Victor Orban has gone that far. But, who knows, maybe the next right-wing hero…. Maybe Putin could try it.
Philip Anderson
“A trend is a trend is a trend. But the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?”
(Alexander Cairncross)
That’s why I don’t worry about humanity going extinct through a birth dearth.
Yes, individual nations may disappear but, frankly, so what? Nations or tribes are born, mature and die. It’s happened throughout history. Maybe one day the Japanese will be one with the Hittites. Why should I care?
But there’s another reason I don’t worry about the birth dearth. By definition childless people are absent from the future gene pool. People with only one child contribute less than people who have three or more children.
To the extent that your genes make you more likely to have children – and they almost certainly do – the proportion of people with a genetic makeup that inclines them to have children will grow and fertility rates will rise. So, as a species, we won’t go extinct.
You write:
“World societies are telling young women that their careers and the big=paying job are what should be important in their lives.”
I’m not sure that’s true. It certainly isn’t true in Hungary but that has had zero effect on fertility.
However, let’s see your actionable plan for a counter-message.
What is it you think needs to be done to persuade women to have more babies?
Who is going to do it?
How is it going to be implemented?
That was my challenge to people worried about the birth dearth in my first post and I’m repeating it.
Stop moaning
Tell us what to do. Be specific. -
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-09-03 14:35:03 +1000Philip, do you think couples should have children before they’re financially able to support them?
Because from your comment, you seem to be implying this (by saying that having children is more important than a successful career). -
Philip Anderson commented 2024-09-03 14:19:09 +1000Mr Meyer,
A stable population in the future that is half of what is at present is probably bad in my opinion. Leave that question aside and consider how one might manage to obtain a STABLE population of any size because a country with a declining population is a dying country.
Fertility Rate (FR) is the number of children born to a woman during her lifetime. A FR of more than two produces a stable or growing population.
Japan’s fertility rate dropped below two 50 years ago. It continues to drop year by year and is currently 1.2 in spite of efforts by the Japanese government to encourage more children.
Japan’s population dropped by 3.5 million over the last 15 years and the rate of decline in population is increasing. In 2023, it dropped by 850,000. This year, it may fall by a million.
World societies are telling young women that their careers and the big=paying job are what should be important in their lives. They study and work tirelessly to establish their careers by their mid-thirties and then find themselves single and with little prospect of finding a suitable husband and with precipitously declining fertility -
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-09-03 10:59:50 +1000Steven, the only realistic way to increase fertility rates is to restrict access to contraception and women’s education.
When women don’t have an education and can’t get jobs, they have nothing to do with their time except get pregnant and have children. -
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-03 10:34:32 +1000I notice that no one has come up with any ideas for a workable plan to raise fertility rates.
So why don’t we accept that populations are going to shrink for a few decades, that they’re going to be top-heavy with oldies, and plan accordingly?
Does anyone here seriously think the birth dearth will continue until we’ve become extinct?
Serious question:
What would be so terrible about a stable population of about half the current size? -
Paul Bunyan commented 2024-09-03 09:52:20 +1000I love children so much I don’t want them to suffer. And the only way to guarantee this is to not create them in the first place.
-
David Page commented 2024-09-03 09:06:08 +1000I am curious about something; do people on this site think it is moral and right for women to be forced to have more children?
-
David Page commented 2024-09-03 09:03:59 +1000Prosperity brings a collapse in the birth rate. Making people financially better off if they have kids just insures that they won’t have any more. Watch Steven’s video. It is all there, if between the lines.
-
mrscracker commented 2024-09-02 23:05:14 +1000They’re good people at PRI and they’ve been doing good work for quite a while. I try to support them with donations when I can.
-
Steven Meyer commented 2024-09-02 11:25:17 +1000“My take: It is time to stop beating around the bush about population collapse. Nothing short of a social revolution is required to turn things around. By that I mean a reordering of values and priorities towards a family-centric rather than profit-centric world. Mammon worship has clearly failed us.”
Yeah, I keep hearing that.
So would anyone like to present the outline of a concrete plan for the “reordering of values and priorities towards a family-centric rather than profit-centric world”?
And by plan I mean something actionable, not just a recitation of a list of the usual bogeymen.
A plan that takes into account the world as it actually is, not as someone thinks it should be.
For my part, I’m not too concerned about this. Yes, a shrinking population top-heavy with oldies poses problems; but they’re more tractable than those of a population that expands indefinitely.
And eventually the population will stabilise. We’re not going extinct because we stopped making babies.
Here’s how one of yesterday’s right-wing heroes, Victor Orban, is faring in his attempt to raise fertility in Hungary.
Spoiler alert: It’s a flop. The number of births in Hungary is plummeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUPH2n3g5bg
Meanwhile another right-wing ex-hero, Giorgia Meloni, is sounding increasingly desperate. -