Depopulation

Depopulation, Development, Delusion, Depression, Denial, Denigration (Part #2)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K ]

Any reference to "depopulation" invites (and elicits) unquestionable consensus on the need to challenge any discussion of issues which can be framed by that problematic term. Curiously any consideration of depopulation is readily defined as inappropriate and fundamentally "bad". Readily conflated with the intrinsically "evil" and its perpetrators, those in any way held to be associated with a strategy of that nature can be held to be complicit in cultivating an evil agenda:

• Robert Frank: Billionaires Try to Shrink World's Population, Report Says (The Wall Street Journal, 26 at 2009)
• Michel Chossudovsky: "Billionaires Try to Shrink World's Population": Secret Gathering Sponsored by Bill Gates,  (Global Research, 22 July 2023)
• Rebecca Weisser: The Depopulation Bomb: who will save us from the Good Club? The Spectator, 14 January 2023)

Conspiracy: The focus for many is on the existence of a depopulation conspiracy. Consideration of related arguments can be dismissed as supportive to various degrees of genocide and euthanasia -- with all the opprobrium with which these are associated. Whilst many of those individuals considered complicit may have endeavoured to articulate reasoned arguments, no credibility can be authoritatively associated with them:

• Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne Howland Ehrlich: The Population Bomb (Sierra Club/Ballantine Books, 1968; 50 years later, Climate One, 2018)
• Paul Collins: The Depopulation Imperative: how many people can Earth support? (Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2021)
• Michael Snyder and Alexander Light: List of 30 ‘Elites’ That Support and Promote Worldwide Depopulation (Global Research, 13 July 2023)

Human right: Depopulation is understood to be directly opposed to strategies deemed to be unquestionably appropriate and desirable, framed by the fundamental human right of every family to produce as many children as desired, without any reasonable constraint. This is held by the Abrahamic religions to follow from a divine injunction (Be Fruitful and Multiply, 1995). Any consideration of their degree of complicity in the matter is inherently offensive, as noted separately (Root Irresponsibility for Major World Problems: the unexamined role of Abrahamic faiths in sustaining unrestrained population growth, 2007).  

Understood as a human right, reinforced by divine injunction, the promotion of natalism (in the form of pronatalism) is then framed as natural and appropriate. Any presentation of constraints are readily framed as misconceived, if not deliberately misleading. Larger families, if not large families, are readily encouraged, irrespective of constraints on resources (Enabling Fruitful Multiplication of Global Population, 2015). This is seen as a means of eliciting massive social consensus by unconstrained reframing of strategic priorities.

Careful avoidance: A direct consequence is that no politician can consider arguments relating in any way to effecting depopulation -- if a political career is to be safeguarded and developed (Overpopulation Debate as a Psychosocial Hazard, 2009). This is reflected in academic and intergovernmental institutions, where consideration of the associated demographic issues is highly deprecated and ensures rapid loss of funding (Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge, 2008).

Deemed a fundamentally inconvenient truth, the dimensions of the issue are essentially incommunicable (Institutionalized Shunning of Overpopulation Challenge, 2008).

With the current evolution of legislation on misinformation, it can be readily imagined that reference to the demographic challenge may be prohibited as dangerously misleading (Prohibition of Reference to Overpopulation of the Planet: draft proposal, 2019).  

Population decline: "Depopulation", when understood as the phenomenon of population decline -- rather than as a questionable strategy -- is however occasionally reframed to enable its effects to be deplored otherwise, most notably with respect to sub-replacement fertility, namely as a total fertility rate (TFR) that leads to each new generation being less populous than the older onea.

As described, for example, by Brzozowska Kuhn and Potančoková Prettner (Depopulation trends in Europe: what do we know about it, Population Europe, 2021):

From 29 November to 1 December 2021 the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital (IIASA, OeAW, University of Vienna) held its annual conference. The focus of the 2021 conference was on the causes and consequences of depopulation, an issue very much in the spotlight of the European Commission and beyond. In the public and policy discourse, negative views are often emphasised but could population decline create opportunities? The conference brought together researchers from around the world working on population decline and its consequences from demographic, economic, sociological, political, environmental and geographical perspectives.

In the public and policy discourse, negative views are often emphasised but could population decline create opportunities? The conference brought together researchers from around the world working on population decline and its consequences from demographic, economic, sociological, political, environmental and geographical perspectives.

Under the heading Consequences of Depopulation: there is no need for alarmism, the description of that initiative includes:

According to the UN Population Division’s forecasts, all countries will face substantial declines in population growth rates over the 21st century and about 55% of countries will end up facing depopulation by 2090. While the population shrinking will be moderate compared to other historical periods, it will nevertheless pose economic and other challenges regarding: (1) the strategic consequences of depopulation; (2) the negative economic effects of a shrinking population with respect to economies of scale; (3) the sustainability of social security and pension systems; (4) the consequences for investment, v) the effects on technological progress of an ever older population; and (5) concerns with respect to health expenditures of an ageing population.

Ponzi scheme? To what extent is the response to population decline, through the promotion of population growth, to be recognized as a global Ponzi scheme, as may be variously explored ("Sustaining growth" as a Ponzi scheme?, 2008; Global Economy of Truth as a Ponzi Scheme, 2016).

Rather than "depopulation" being usefully framed as an evil conspiracy, is it not possible that eliciting population growth -- especially among those already disadvantaged -- is even more problematic? The possibility that those promoting such growth are primarily concerned with the need for "workers" (to sustain a misconceived economic model) is however beyond consideration. Their arguments cannot be challenged -- much as those who benefit primarily from Ponzi schemes and are concerned to ensure their viability (whilst denying their reality).

Overcrowding? Curiously, although no authority can acknowledge the reality of overpopulation, there is increasing official concern with "overcrowding" -- most evidently of favoured tourist destinations. Recognition of overcrowding however extends to housing and refugee camps -- as well as being evident with respect to calls on resources ans facilities.

Seemingly there is a reality to overcrowding, whereas overpopulation is held to be a myth, as separately explored (Local Reality of Overcrowding -- Global Unreality of Overpopulation, 2019). As a myth, the matter cannot be effectively explored by authorities or relevant disciplines.

Root cause of global crisis? There are many analyses of the pattern of global crises. Any mention of population is typically of a diffident nature, given the opprobrium that serious discussion would attract. As discussed separately, no effort is made to make use of an especially relevant discipline -- root cause analysis (Indifference to indicators and root cause analysis, 2019)

From that perspective the fundamental question that cannot be asked is which problems would not be alleviated by a global population of fewer people.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K ]