Positive Effects Can Come From a Lower Birth Rate Essay

In the not-so-distant past, there was a world wide effort to create zero population growth. The environmental uproar in the 1970s had scientists convinced that with 4 billion or so people on that planet, Earth had reached her carrying capacity. The basic premises was that there wasn’t enough room for all the people being born and that there definitely would not be enough room when we reached 2050 and a project population of 11 billion (Cohen, 1). Though the global warming predicts had not begun yet, there were huge concerns that the planet could not produce enough food for 11 billion people and that we would be consuming resources at such an alarming rate that world would die from too many people. Flash forward thirty years and now, industrialized countries across the world are expressing concern that they may have been too hasty in their condemnation of population growth. In fact, many are downright worried about their population declines or very slow population growth. They express concern that the economy will collapse as the burden of the elderly is too great for the younger generation to support and care for. Labor leaders claim there will not be enough people to do the work that needs done and others decry the trend as the true end of the British Empire and the dominance of Western Civilization as those are the countries with declining birth rates. The simple truth is that a low birth rate can be a positive choice for the industrialized world, if considered in the right light. This paper will look at some of the factors contributing to the declining population and the effects that are likely because of a population decline. To understand how this situation developed, it is interesting to review the last 900 years of human sexuality. In his essay â€Å"Two Successive Motivations for the Declining Birth Rate in the West†, Phillippe Aries argues that since the Middle Ages, the shift in societal norms had lead to the declining birth rate. The Church enticed people to a moral stance against pre-marital sex and as the economy evolved from largely agrarian to industrial and even retail based, the large family was no longer an economic necessity (646).   In an agrarian society, children were a source of cheap labor and a financial boon to their parents. The cost of feeding and clothing them was more than made up for by their assistance in earning the family sustenance. But as societies moved away from the farm, children became an expense. Indeed, Aries writes, the trend to significantly smaller families began in the Middle Ages and continued unabated until the Baby Boom after the end of World War II (647). The trend toward smaller families was also a sign of planning and forethought. It was assumed that a smaller family could even be considered a measure of self-control and â€Å"The fewer the children, the more care and attention that could be devoted to each† (Aries, 647) As society became more mobile and people were no longer trapper in the social class that they were born in, people chose smaller families with the idea that they could provide more opportunities for that smaller family and their children would have greater economic opportunity that they did (648). In addition, in the mid-1970s concerns about overpopulation ran rampant. By the mid 1990s, they were in crisis mode.   In Science magazine in 1995, JE Cohen wrote, â€Å"Earth’s capacity to support people is determined both by natural constraints and by human choices concerning economics, environment, culture (including values and politics), and demography. Human carrying capacity is therefore dynamic and uncertain.†Ã‚   (341). Though scientists argued about what that carrying capacity might be, they warned rabidly that if the exponential population growth were not stopped the capacity would be reached in our children’s lifetime if not our own. Further complicating things was an environmental movement   that claimed deforestation to turn the land into agricultural production as causing soil erosion and pollution faster than we could imagine. If the world growth continued unabated, the population would reach that carrying capacity much sooner because the Earth would be too polluted to sustain life. Even now, in An Inconvenient Truth Nobel Prize winner Al Gore points out that trees cut down to provide grazing land for cattle are contributing to global warming because the living trees would have cut carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Though Gore does not make the leap, it is there to behold. Too many people means more land devoted to food production which means fewer trees and faster global warming. With all that in place, it is no wonder then that people chose to have smaller families or no families at all. And that is where the new scientific debate and political nightmare began. The United Nations reports that 75 percent of the industrialized nations of the world have reached zero population growth including the United States and most of Western Europe. The population of Britain is still growing at a very slow rate, largely due to immigration, but in Germany and Japan the total population has begun to decline. This has thrown social scientists into a tizzy. They complain that there will not be enough workers to take all the jobs that are needed; they claim the workers will no longer be able to meet the tax demands of their nations; and they claim that a declining number of young people will mean that there is no one around to care for the Baby Boomers as they get older.   Not surprisingly, many of these doom and gloom predictions are written by Baby Boomers. Instead, it might be nice to focus on the positive benefits of population control. A smaller population will mean simple things, like less congestion on the highways and fewer people in the one open checkout line at the grocery store. But those are the incidental effects of a lower population growth. The key benefits of a smaller population are: better access to education, less pollution and therefore less global warming, and more job opportunities. For a decade or so, Americans have been decrying overcrowding in the school systems as a factor in school performance.   In 2003, CNN reported that overcrowding was causing a boom in the temporary classroom business and states across the nation were taking steps to reduce overcrowding (CNN, 1).   With a declining birth rate in the industrialized nations, fewer children will need to be educated and the student to teacher ratio will decrease. That will lead to more individualized attention for each student and better learning opportunities. In addition, as those children get older, instead of being able to raise prices and keep students from going to college, colleges and universities will be forced to compete for students. The reality is that smaller class size throughout the educational process will mean that all students are getting a better education, not just the ones who can afford private school or the ones lucky enough to be talented an attract a teacher’s interest. Furthermore, as the population seeking a college degree decreases second-class universities with questionable accreditation will be driven out of business and the top academic talent will mass in good schools providing good educations. As simple as it sounds, another advantage of a smaller population will be less pollution. Gore’s movie and other studies of global warming indicate that one of the significant contributors to greenhouse gases are personal vehicles. If there are fewer people, there will by simple logic be fewer cars and fewer cars mean that fewer greenhouse gases are emitted. And, fewer people means less need for food, so some farmland could be returned to forest or converted from vast corporate farms to sustainable small farms which produce healthier food and fewer pollutants. The rain forest of the Amazon River Basin could be left as rain forest with no need for more cattle to feed the world’s desire for beef consumption and the demand for electricity would fall as there were fewer people using it. As the demand for electricity falls, older, fossil fuel burning electric plants could be shut down or replaced with newer, cleaner burning generation facilities. The ultimate proof of the effect that the population has on the environment can be observed today in India. â€Å"Environmental pollution is one of the serious problems faced by the people in the country. Rapid population growth, industrialization and urbanization in country are adversely affecting the environment. (Nagdeve, 2).   India has polluted its sacred rivers and begun poisoning itself, creating a severe lack of potable water because of its overpopulation.   Many of the pollution problems come quite simply from human excrement. There are insufficient sewage facilities and the sewage contaminants the ground water, leading to environmental collapse. With 1.1 billion people, India is the second most populous nation in the world and is being destroyed by its high birth rate (Nagdeve, 33). In China, the world’s largest population has become the primary source of greenhouse gases and is polluting the world at an alarming rate. Though they have instituted some population control measures, the population is so large now that until some of it dies off or moves to other areas, overcrowding and pollution, as well as poor access to resources will continue to be their plight. By far the most concerning aspect of the low-birth rate to most the industrialization nations is the impact it is likely to have on the economy. Naysayers claim the smaller populace will be unable to meet the needs of the elderly population, will be unable to meet the tax burden placed on them by their parents and grandparents and will not be able to meet the employment needs of the country.   The arguments are complicated and may have a grain of truth in them, but are not the forgone conclusion that they are assumed to be. First, there is the issue of meeting the needs of the elderly populace. This is in many ways a self-serving argument of the Baby Boom generation the reality is that in the United States, a third of the workforce is now over the age of 55. â€Å"Because of an aging population and declining growth of the labor force, human resource policies are changing. Companies are offering incentives to keep older workers working past retirement age. Older workers can sometimes replace the lack of younger employees. Opportunities like flextime, part-time, temp work, job sharing, and extended vacations are becoming more common for employees of all ages. Businesses are learning that people of all shapes, sizes, ages, colors, and backgrounds can be good workers† (Johnson, 1) Many of the Baby Boomers are living to ripe old ages and will need long term care, but it also means they are staying in the workforce longer.   And, they are better able to care for themselves than any previous generation of retirees. In addition, society has seen this short-term boom in the elderly population coming and ahs planned for it. Retirement communities and apartment complexes make care for the elderly much easier than in previous generations. Since they are all located in one area instead of being spread out in various private homes, the number of people needed to care for the elderly is greatly reduced. Second, there is the question of the tax burden, again a selfish notion of the elderly that the younger generation should have to support their Social Security needs even though it is an unrealistic expectation.   Unfortunately, instead of working as Franklin Roosevelt had planned and being a supplement to a personal retirement plan, Social Security has become the only retirement plan for many Americans and the government has continued to bail out failed retirement plan after failed retirement plan, usually due to poor fiscal planning or malfeasance on the part of those overseeing the plan. The simple reality is that the elderly cannot continue to rely on the government to meet all their needs and it is likely that in choosing to have fewer children they chose not to have the financial support of a younger generation. Aries argued that they shouldn’t need the financial support family or the government because of their decision not to have a large family.   He argued that with the money people saved by not having a family, they should be able to pay for help when they reach retirement age (Aries, 629). While this inability to deal with the tax burden is a valid concern, it can also be viewed as a great opportunity. Many people complain that the current government system is messed up and the tax plan unfair, but no one seems to be able to do anything about it.   Though a collapse of the economic structure is an extreme way to bring about change, it is a valid way and one that may have to be considered in the near future. Finally, the argument against low-birth rates is that the there will be insufficient people to work the jobs that need doing. This is perhaps the weakest argument of all. Do we really need a Starbucks on every corner and a McDonald’s two doors down?   The reality is that the economic market will correct itself.   Fewer people available to do the jobs will mean that high school and college students are able to find part-time work again and it will mean that the unemployment rate will drop. Regardless of the opportunity, there will always be some degree of unemployment either voluntary or temporary, but with greater opportunities available, more people will have better economic opportunities. Yes, some low-paying jobs may go unfilled. If that happens, the need will equate to the job growth. Like the tax issue, it will probably mean a restructuring of societal values. If more people are need in the medical field to care for the elderly and society places a higher value on that then serving coffee or flipping burgers, society will adjust to the loss of mass market coffee and fast food. After all, less than fifty years ago, fast food was barely thought of. Fast food and poor paying retail jobs were not always a vital part of the American economy and if there is a labor shortage, they might be gone again. If there is a shortage of labor, society will adjust and fill the positions that it most needs. Some economists have argued that with a smaller labor force, economies could collapse as the total productivity level of a nation is decreased, but historical analysis shows us that this too may be a made up fear and an irrational prediction. In an essay regarding the impact low birth rates will have on the economy, William H. Reid, writing for the Journal on Extension said that history shows that our most productive times in history were when the population was smaller. For example, he said, right after the Black Plague productivity in Europe skyrocketed (Reid, 1). The idea behind the increase was that people had something to work for and out of necessity worked hard to get it. He further argued that while overall productivity might be down, wages will be up as employers compete for qualified staff. That will mean that the economy will be booming. The simple truth is that zero population growth was a good idea twenty years ago and that has not changed.   The great majority of opposition to it in Europe and North America is in fact a form of xenophobia, a fear that if other parts of the world outbreed the locals, the local way of life will be destroyed. If analysts were honest and admitted to this fear, there might be more action taken on it. By hiding their fears in other â€Å"concerns†, they miss a chance for honest discourse on the effect that a huge Indian and Chinese population will have on the world. They miss the opportunity to take real action to address the overpopulation concerns of India.   Allowing more people to emigrate from overcrowded areas to less crowded areas will cut down on the demands on the resources of individual nations and improve the quality of life around the globe. However, so many areas are insular and afraid to share their land or way of life with anyone of a different culture. If the industrialized countries were at least willing to admit that, there arguments might have more standing in the world’s eyes. The reasons why the birth rate in the industrialized world is dropping are numerous and debatable.   Aries suggested that another reason why the birth rate is declining is that people no longer see a way to make the world a better place for their descendants. Whether it is a fear of nuclear annihilation or global warming, many people are concerned that the world will not be a great place for the next generation and have decided against having children (469). Others have decided to keep the money for their own happiness instead of spending it on a child and some simply wait longer than they meant to and find they unable to have children. Whatever the reasons for the declining birth rate, it is a fact of life in Europe and North America. Those nations can simply decide how to live with the consequences or, as they have in parts of Europe, take extreme action to reverse the course. In Japan and Germany where the population is already beginning to decline, the smaller population had coincided with an economic growth period. Whether this is simply coincidental is hard to tell at this point, but history seems to tell us that the chances are good that a deckling birth rate does not spell doom and gloom and the end of the world. Instead, it will like lead to a period of greater education for the average person, a cleaner environment and a booming economy. It may also lead to revolutionary thinking as the countries that have always had plenty of people to do their menial tasks have to consider other alternatives, such as an open border with Mexico so that there are more workers, or allowing a mass immigration from India, to relieve overcrowding there. Whatever the solution, it will require scientific and political minds meeting together and honestly discussing the wants and fears of Europe and North America and their desire to change them. In the end, the best consequence of a declining birth rate might be a further globalization of the world. Areas in the Far East and the Indian subcontinent with population problems will need to find more space and Europe and North America will have to find more workers. If the struggle be worked through and the prejudices and fears overcome, then the best thing that could come from a lower birth rate would be an international melting pot with everyone working together for a better planet, better economy and a better life. WORKS CITED Aries, Phillippe.†Two Successive Motivations for the Declining Birth Rate in the West† Population and Development Review > Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 645-650   November 20, 2007. Cohen, JE â€Å"Population growth and earth’s human carrying capacity† Science Vol.269, Issue 5222, Summer, 1995, p. 341-46. â€Å"Ending overcrowding in California Schools†Ã‚   Policylink < http://www.policylink.org/Research/SchoolOvercrowding/> November 20, 2007. Johnson, Kelly. â€Å"The Effects of a Declining Birth Rate on the Labor Force† < http://cber.cba.ua.edu/rbriefs/ab_jan98.html> November 20, 2007. Martin, Steve P. â€Å"Diverging Fertility among U.S. Women Who Delay Childbearing Past Age 30† Demography , Vol. 37, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 523-533 November 20,2007. Nagdeve,   Dewaram. â€Å"Environment and Health in India†Ã‚   presented to Asian Context at Bangkok, Thailand, June 10, 2002. < http://www.iussp.org/Bangkok2002/S09Nagdeve.pdf> November 20, 2007. â€Å"Overcrowding Fuel Boom† CNN.com < http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/06/02/classsize.portables.ap/index.html> November 20, 2007. Reid, Walter H. â€Å"Will Declining Birt Rates creates a Crisis?† Journal of Extension (Summer 1988), Vol. 26, No. 2 , November 20, 2007.