In today’s L.A. Times, they discuss the population problem in Germany – not OVERpopulation, but the loss of people. In Sex is Essential But Kids Aren’t, the LAT reports that 30% of German women are childless, mostly by choice. It rises to 40% in college educated women. Is this evolution selecting against people with liberal worldviews? (slight sarcasm ;).
Also today, the BBC reports that President Putin of Russia is also worried about the population of Russia (see video). It seems that their "critical" low birth rate problem (as opposed to mortality rates?) is leading to an annual population loss of 700,000 per year! He offered cash to women for having children – time to move to Russia.
But of course, Russia doesn’t have a problem only with birth rates, but with mortality.
President Putin didn’t mention another factor which threatens Russian population growth: HIV/Aids. Last year, 350,000 people in the country were registered as HIV positive. The true figure may be much higher, and continues to grow.
Heavy drinking, smoking, bad diet, and deaths in road accidents are all other causes of death which will need to be tackled if Russia’s population decline is to be halted.
But one question I have is, are these countries really overpopulated from an ecosystem point of view? If so, maybe they should be glad that their populations are returning to an eco-friendly size. The real worry of the Russians, however, is not world resources, but the fact that as a nation, they may become smaller and weaker. We have competing values here – eco-friendly depopulation v. nationalism.
Q: Are ecology advocates welcoming the lowering populations of these countries?
Q: Are the "anti-child, anti-family" ideologies adopted around the world, (except in Christian and Muslim circles) causing the population of liberals to decrease? If so, we see here that evolution may select against liberalism. But seriously, I wonder if this keeps liberals up at night.
