Worldwide decline in total fertility rate and aging
“Remember the population bomb? The new threat to the planet is not too many people but too few.”
After describing daily news, warnings, and “proofs” of overpopulation, the author of this Newsweek article writes: “Yet this is not the full story. To the contrary, in fact. Across the globe, people are having fewer and fewer children… The world’s population will continue to grow—from today’s 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon that we’re destined to learn much more about—depopulation—has already begun in a number of countries.
Welcome to the New Demography. It will change everything about our world, from the absolute size and power of nations to global economic growth to the quality of our lives” (Michael Meyer, September 27, 2004).
In general, a TFR (total fertility rate, or children per woman) of 2.1 is necessary to replace a country’s population. In the Philippines, where mortality rates are higher, it is estimated to be around 2.29. Below this level, population could still grow temporarily, because of population momentum (relatively many women of reproductive age), reduced deaths (longer life expectancy due to better health care and less wars, hunger and calamities) and immigration (which is not the case in the Philippines). But some two or three generations after the TFR goes below replacement level, as the country eventually loses its population momentum (as the bulk of its women age) and lifespan reaches its maximum, population decline will take place.
TheUnited Nations Population Division (UNPD) states, “The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if combined with increases in life expectancy, is population ageing, whereby the share of older persons in a population increases relative to that of younger persons” (World Population Prospects. The 2004 Revision: Highlights). It adds, “Globally, the number of persons aged 60 years or over is expected almost to triple, increasing from 672 million in 2005 [that is, 10.34 percent of world population] to nearly 1.9 billion by 2050 [that is, 20.88 percent of world population].”
The situation that those in favor of population control want us to foresee is when there will be few children to care for, and by that time, they say, the Philippines will become well-off. But they never explain what will happen beyond this stage: population ageing and decline. By then, a huge number of elderly have to be supported by a smaller number of working people. Families with only a few members will find it more difficult to care for the elderly than those with more members, unless they are extremely rich.
The pension fund and the social security system will be overburdened. There will be a decline in the number of new workers, and the labor force will be older and less efficient. Having fewer and older people means a smaller market, especially for certain sectors such as baby food, clothing, vaccines and certain other medicines, sports facilities, office equipment, education, etc.—products and services the elderly employ less.
Having only a few births today will lead to having more coffins than cradles two generations or so later.
Gone were the days when the mass media overwhelmingly advanced the doctrine of world overpopulation—a quasi-dogma in public opinion that turned out to be nothing more than a well-crafted heresy.
Babies desperately needed
Because of the consequences of having an elderly and a collapsing population, Dr. Joseph Chamie, former UNPD director, explains that, “governments are seeking to address the underlying causes of low fertility and adopting polices . . . to increase their child bearing,” including . . . “1. Restrict or limit contraception, 2. Restrict or limit abortion . . . 6. Match making to encourage marriage . . . 7. Public relation campaigns for marriage, childbearing and parenthood, 8. Make child-raising a financial option for women [e.g., paid job] . . . 10. Paid maternity leave, 11. Paid paternity leave, 12. Cash bonus for birth of child . . . 25.
Political/legal system more responsive to couples with children, e.g., granting extra voting rights to adults with minor children” (“Low Fertility: Can Governments Make A Difference?” address to the Population Association of America, April 2, 2004). They pay parents to have more children. In an extreme scenario, a city in southern Italy near Naples named Laviano offers 10,000 Euros for each new baby.
Government programs pushing for increased fertility have not succeeded so far (J. Chamie, “Low Fertility:
Can Governments Make a Difference?”). If ever they succeed in increasing birthrates some generations from now, their workers will have to care not only for their big population of elderly dependents, but also for the increasingly big batches of children they want to have, the young dependents. This will mean a double economic burden for them.
They hope to return to the scenario they were in 50 years ago: to have many babies who would eventually replace the work force, and in turn care for both the young and the elderly dependents. That is, they seek a normal population pyramid, shaped like a real pyramid, with a wide base and a narrow tip, and not like a diamond, a toy top, an inverted pyramid or an hourglass. They want to revert to the pyramid they had 50 years ago, the pyramid that the Philippines still has today, but which it can eventually lose if its total fertility rate continues to decline. Within a few decades, our country can easily fall into the same trap where ageing countries find themselves in and want to escape from right now.
Our TFR now dangerously low
The UNPD figures indicate that it is not an exaggeration to say that as early as now the Philippine total fertility rate is already dangerously low. Whereas in the early 1970s the average Filipina had six children, today she has around three, and in another 20 years, only two. Shortly after 2020, or just 15 years from now, the Philippine TFR will sink below its replacement level of around 2.29. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines pointed out way back in 1990, “The government’s intensified program will push our fertility levels to the edge of irreversibility. When this comes to pass, on whose conscience will this crime fall?” (“Love is Life. A Pastoral Letter on the Population Control Activities of the Philippine Government and Planned Parenthood Associations,” October 7, 1990).
It will be too late and useless to wait for the total fertility rate to go below replacement level and then try to raise it up again. The only solution would be to try to prevent its further decline today—an effort that will probably not succeed within a few decades, but will hopefully at least lessen the impact of an ageing population.
If approved, the bills promoting population control will certainly plunge the Philippines’ total fertility rate further down. The replacement TFR assumes an average of 2.29 children for all women in the Philippines; the bills on the other hand propose 2.0 children not for all women, but for women who have families.
Assuming that 95 percent of all Filipinas raise a family while the other 5 percent remain single, what the bill proposes roughly speaking is a TFR of 2.0 x 95 percent, or 1.9, which is way below the replacement level.
This computation furthermore assumes that the families will actually have two children. Experience in other countries shows that when the target is to have two children, the tendency is to have less (one or even zero child) rather than more children. This will send the country’s total fertility rate further down.
The Philippine population pyramids of 2000, 2025 and 2050 reflect the TFR’s downward trend. –FATHER GREGORY D. GASTON, STD, Manila Times
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
