The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Germany dominance over as demographic crunch worsens -- The Telegraph
Germany's birth rate has collapsed to the lowest level in the world and its workforce will start plunging at a faster rate than Japan's by the early 2020s, seriously threatening the long-term viability of Europe's leading economy. A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4.
A study by the World Economy Institute in Hamburg (HWWI) found that the average number of births per 1,000 population dropped to 8.2 over the five years from 2008 to 2013, further compounding a demographic crisis already in the pipeline. Even Japan did slightly better at 8.4.
We can do the demographic transition so effectively now!
Let's look closer to the welcome demographic shift:
(birth rate per 1000 women, per year)
Whatever you think about dumb misogynist US conservatives, reproductively they are doing darned well. That is not exactly big news - but the numbers are really distinctive. Just when real natural selection game is starting...
The liberal baby bust -- USA Today (2006)
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs [...] It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future -- one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families. [...] Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future -- one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
[...] Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Statistically, this can be seen very clearly in the difference of fecundity rates between Germany and France. The difference is social engineering by the government : mandating maternity leave, with the obligation for the employer to take a woman back afterwards; organisation of schools and affordable childcare to make parenting compatible with full-time work; tax breaks for families with children; etc.
I suspect that Washington, Oregon etc. have increasing populations, because they are fine places to migrate to. But I think their state governments would do well to examine these policy areas if they are concerned about fecundity rates. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Seattle is the the most atheist US city, by the way.
In the Seattle area it's only 52 percent. Reflecting the community's diversity, 10 percent of "believers" claim non-Christian faiths like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hindu.
Removing genetics as a factor is imho the first step.
Graves build up his general system from numerous interviews, inspired by Maslow's pyramid of needs. The progression of values fairly reflects available resources (individually or collectively). The odd-numbered values transpire to be ego-centric (so to speak), while even-number numbered are "society" centric.
The liberals (and socialists) fall neatly into the value level #6: humanistic values, human rights; opposing extreme inequality and hierarchy; providing satisfactory living standards to everyone; supporting sexual choice, etc. The conservatives are represented by a mixed bag in this system: #4 (traditional society values, religion); #3 (authoritarian leadership of various sorts); #5 (entrepreneurship, opportunistic autonomy). The reason that conservatism encompasses a few different value systems is that those systems co-existed for centuries already. Besides, the meta-level #7 (awareness that values are not absolute, and using that for personal benefit) generally favors conservativism as well.
Within this paradigm, the general liberal direction in the last century is well explained by unprecedented abundance of resources. Extrapolation to a bright liberal future is then reasonable only assuming the same abundance of resource further down. But if resources become tight instead, prevalence of the value level #6 is in deep trouble. Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations. Secondly, it will be tougher to sustain or buy #6 personally, with the personal share of resources and benefits becoming unsatisfactory. Liberals will prevail in the biggest cities pretty long, as this is where resources and services are concentrated. But the liberals (generally) find themselves already pretty low in the financial food chain and social influence. Habitually, they profess their values passively and have intrinsic leadership issues. No wonder that they were led by #7 wolves in the last two decades to wholesome irrelevance. The progress in LGBT rights only masks the lost ground on social-economic issues.
Genetics is surely not a dominant factor in the Graves value system. Rather explicitly, it is postulated that Graves' values "progress" pretty inevitably with a larger cake of resources. In particular, #6 is dependent on the level of education, and appearance of having enough to everyone. Genetics might play a role in flexibility, readiness to embrace or avoid particular value systems. For example, (non)stickiness to authority dynamics might be a genetic determinant for #6 acceptance.
What I notice is that there are several trends heralding a depression of #6 values. The brief rise and fall of #6 might be a recurrent story of great civilizations.
In reality resources are abundant, and with reality-based development there's no need for current and future constraints.
What there is a need for is a removal of resource use for pointless tribal wealth display - which directly and indirectly creates scarcity in the short term, and stunts resource development in the longer term.
The current average Western lifestyle is beyond Earth's carrying capacity (for today's 7 billion) already, many suspect. We are already flaunting our tribal display to the future generations.
Even if humanity is objectively safe with resources for this century, perceptions of the concerned may matter more. The current austerity regime for the masses is indeed artificially sharpened scarcity. Would this be the first time in human history that tribal elites prefer to experiment with artificial scarcity rather than risk a cannibalistic collapse? Would #9s agree to compromise their transhumanist hobbies just to allow a billion more of fit, happy, productive people live on Earth? What if we won't ever reach planets near other stars if we dig into planet's oil resources for another 50 years like now?
Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations.
Excuse me, who are the people who are perceptive of resource limitations? Do you class the global green movement among the conservatives?
Conservatives are generally in deep denial about resource limitations, or they pretend to be (global warming denialists are rarely liberals, for example). They consider that the commons (fossil fuels, fish in the sea, an unpolluted environment) are theirs for the grabbing, and eagerly exploit them for individual profit, while the negative consequences are denied (and become a collective responsibility, that only liberals care about).
Resource limitations are real. Scarcity is both the result of confiscation, and of mismanagement by the confiscators, who don't care about optimising the global outcome as long as they get their share. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
The NLP/transformational training industry (whether for persons organizations) has definitely gathered a lot of practical impactful knowledge that is guiding big organizations and their leaders. In particular, corporations build up their inner structure as "societies" of individuals with "complimentary" Graves value sets. Not too surprisingly, the industry is not particularly interested do disseminate its knowledge to public just so. An academic formulation is apparently not the most attractive option for those involved.
Hierarchical structures are anti-fragile (in Taleb's sense) with respect to resource limitations, almost tautologically. That is a better characterization than fit.
Even defining "women" as "women over 20" or so, and rounding down to 55, that is still 3.3 children per woman, in other words a runaway population increase. That does not seem right. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
The map is for the year 2011.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Quantifying the effect in this particular case would require me to go dig around in BLS databases for an hour or two, which I don't feel like doing right this moment.
The "replacement rate" of 2.0 children per women corresponds to 66.7 for the map data (=2.0x1000/(30 years)) - right in the gap between the blue and red numbers (apart from Hawaii).
Now imagine that you have two states, one in which all the women are 29 years old, and one in which they are all 28 years old.
Now tell me what the absolute birth rate would be in those two states.
Now tell me what the absolute birth rate would be in the following year, for both states.
For extra credit, calculate whether the states in this example are over or under the replacement fertility.
In the real world, of course, both the demographics and the fertility distribution by age are much messier than in the nice, clean example above. Hence the need for spending an hour or two poking about in BLS data.
The article with the map says:
When Lesthaeghe studied the map county by county, he found the link between family size and political leaning became even stronger.
But let's look at the total population picture (US Census Bureau for 2013:
Total Population of the cited "red" states: 42.4 mn
Total Population of the cited "blue" states: 94.3 mn
In other words, the "red" states don't get to even half the population of the "blue" states.
Which relativises the shock value of the chart.
Yeah, we can just go sleep well and never look at this subject.
So please cut the crap about people are suggesting we just go to sleep.
So the cherries. There are a heap of red states in that CDC table that are barely higher than the blue states, and that are under the 62/1000 level that you tell us means population renewal. Why aren't these cited?
Alabama 60.6 Georgia 61.6 N Carolina 60.4 S Carolina 60.6 Virginia 60.9 W Virginia 61.5
And blue California (not cited) is spot on the 62/1000 level.
If the chart means that the top numbers in the table are pretty much all culturally-isolated conservative religious Mid-West states, well duh.
And secondly that the lowest levels are in the less isolated less conservative less religious heavily-populated regions, well double-duh.
If the point is to say that the rednecks are going to catch up on the bluebottles, then the total population figures show that it isn't going to be much of a thing any time soon.
So what is that chart about?
Secondly, "cherry picking" the most extreme cases of birth rate and observing the color consistency is a totally fair game. Your can surely analyze further the middle pot, isolatedness. But your "double dough" is not on target. The less isolated, less conservative states are more mixed cases, thus their middle range birth rate is fully consistent with the supposed high discrepancy between conservatives and liberals. The researcher says, the discrepancy on the "county by county" level is only more clear.
So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then? Then I say, there is always sleep or the Nile.
Is it a reference to Brave New World and the early attempts to teach kids during their sleep? A play on word with nil or nihilist? Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
das monde:
So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then?
as if we should not even think about this matter
I've done enough discussion to show that you're wrong.
What I'm dismissive of is that chart. And, probably too, the notion that political demography is just a matter of birth rates.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 16
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 10
by gmoke - Feb 13 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 6 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Feb 19
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 171 comment
by Oui - Feb 1610 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Oui - Feb 15
by Oui - Feb 143 comments
by Oui - Feb 144 comments
by gmoke - Feb 131 comment
by Oui - Feb 132 comments
by Oui - Feb 134 comments
by Oui - Feb 126 comments
by Oui - Feb 115 comments
by Oui - Feb 11
by Oui - Feb 9
by Oui - Feb 7