Population Collapse is Good According to World Economic Forum By Richard Miller (London)
Here is a story that has been covered in the Dissent press, and must be mentioned here, as it may not have been picked up in Australia. A high level World Economic Forum adviser, Oxford University’s Professor Sarah Harper, has said that the radical decline in fertility across the developed world (including communist China) is good because it will reduce overconsumption, and hence aid in climate change and all that.
The argument is bogus, since the reductions in population, if not matched by mass immigration will only have long-term effects, over many decades, upon carbon outputs. But, the climate change narrative sees this as an immediate threat; their assumption. So, the argument falls on its face. And, perhaps there may not be a consumption reduction even then, as with a population crash, people may need to use more resources, machinery and technology, just to get by. Thus, the issue is far from resolved. Of course, the glee associated with depopulation confirms the criticisms made of the World Economic Forum agenda.
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/uk-population-collapse-good-for-the
“Remember how depopulation was called a right-wing conspiracy theory? Things have changed, and “population collapse,” which can no longer be denied, is now good for us!
The Telegraph picked the perfect messenger to communicate the new way we should think about population declines. A high-level WEF adviser tells us:
Oxford Professor Sarah Harper is a very important person. The Telegraph article listing her credentials forgot to mention that she serves on the Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies of the World Economic Forum.
Prof. Harper is thrilled about recent declines in fertility:
Prof Harper told the Telegraph: “I think it’s a good thing that the high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are reducing the number of children that they’re having. I’m quite positive about that.”
The academic said declining fertility in rich countries would help to address the “general overconsumption that we have at the moment”, which has a negative impact on the planet.
Most importantly, declines in births will bring about reductions in CO2 emissions from wealthy nations, Sarah points out:
Research has found that wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon footprints than poorer countries, as rich people can afford to buy more goods, travel more and do other activities that generate emissions.
Carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger than low-income countries on a per capita basis in 2020, World Bank figures show.
Population Declines, or Population Replacement?
Here’s the strange part: if the leadership of the World Economic Forum wanted to reduce emissions from wealthy countries, I could understand how they would hope that population reductions would lead to a decline in economic output. Aside from moral implications, it is simple math that fewer people means fewer cars on the road, less food consumed, and so on.
However, something entirely different is going on! While the population of local-born natives is no longer reproducing at the levels needed to maintain the population, new immigration picks up. It accounts for a larger and larger share of births!
While the number of births in Britain is declining, the share of children born to parents who immigrated from outside Britain has hit a record high.
Almost one in three children born last year were delivered by mothers born outside of the UK. The number of births by women born outside the UK rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3pc of all births. The previous peak was 29.3pc in 2020.
When including the father, more than one in three children born last year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the figure was two thirds.
This development is inconsistent with wanting to reduce the populations of high-consumption countries. It seems self-defeating to celebrate birth reductions while simultaneously amping up the arrivals of new immigrants who work hard to live well, consume a lot, have many children, and realize the “British dream.”
Please do not interpret me pointing out the above inconsistency as my hostility towards immigrants: I immigrated to the United States, worked hard to have a good life, and am blessed with a beautiful family and two grown children. I am immensely thankful for the opportunity to live in this wonderful land of the free - and I am sure that most other immigrants want to live well and work hard, just as I did.
However, even though I am equally sympathetic towards immigrants, just as I am towards the natives, I cannot shake a feeling that Prof. Harper and the WEF have an inconsistency between stated goals and actions that I cannot explain easily.
This inconsistency is not something I can quite understand: new immigrants want to consume just as much as native residents. Why encourage immigration from poor countries to rich countries if the goal is a reduction of carbon and other emissions that would occur due to declines in the population of rich countries?
“Britain’s top demographics expert has said the falling number of babies born in Britain is a “good thing” after new data showed the number of births had hit a 20-year low.
Professor Sarah Harper CBE, founder and director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing and a former government adviser, said falling birth rates in the West were “good for… our planet”.
Her comments came after official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed there were 605,479 live births in England and Wales last year, the lowest number since 2002.
The total was down 3.1pc compared to 2021 and is part of a long-term decline in the number of births across Britain and the developed world.
Prof Harper told the Telegraph: “I think it’s a good thing that the high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are reducing the number of children that they’re having. I’m quite positive about that.”
The academic said declining fertility in rich countries would help to address the “general overconsumption that we have at the moment”, which has a negative impact on the planet.
Prof Harper served on the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology between 2014 and 2017. She was awarded a CBE for services to demography in 2018.
She said the UK’s declining birth rate was “inevitable” and in-line with trends in other developed economies.
She said: “We will see smaller populations in high-income countries going forward. It’s just going to be a trend of the 21st century and that will actually be good for general overall overconsumption that we have at the moment and our planet.”
Research has found that wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon footprints than poorer countries, as rich people can afford to buy more goods, travel more and do other activities that generate emissions.
Carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger than low-income countries on a per capita basis in 2020, World Bank figures show.
While slowing population growth may reduce carbon emissions, analysts have warned that it also poses significant challenges for economic growth.
A shrinking workforce puts pressure on younger generations to pay more tax for the healthcare of older people. It can also lead to worker shortages that can slow growth.
While the overall number of births in Britain is declining, the share of children born to women from outside of Britain has hit a record high.
Almost one in three children born last year were delivered by mothers born outside of the UK. The number of births by women born outside the UK rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3pc of all births. The previous peak was 29.3pc in 2020.
When including the father, more than one in three children born last year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the figure was two thirds.
The ONS said: “In 2022, India replaced Romania as the most common country of birth for non-UK-born mothers, and Pakistan as the most common country of birth for non-UK-born fathers.”
For the first time since records began in 2003, Afghan women were among the top ten most common nationalities for foreign-born mothers.
It comes after Afghan women were granted humanitarian protection by the UK following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021.
The number of births is separate from Britain’s fertility rate, which measures the ratio of live births to women of childbearing age. This will be published later in the year, as population estimates for mid-2022 are yet to be released.
The fertility rate sank to a record low of 1.58 children per woman during the first year of Covid and recovered slightly to 1.61 in 2021.”
Comments